V 



- 



■ 




BETWEEN ^ T^S ' 



DON LUIS DE ONIS, 



MINISTER FROM SPAIN TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 




JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 

SECRETARY OF STATE, 



EN RELATION TO 



THE FLORIDAS 

AND THE 

BOUNDARIES OF LOUISIANA, 

WITH OTHER MATTERS 
In Dispute between the Two Governments, 



&omron: 

PRINTED FOR EFFINGHAM WILSON, 

88, ROYAL EXCHANGE. 



1818. 

Price Three Shillings* 







^7 



/ 

7 ' 



£31 
ST* 



Maurice, Printer, Fenchurrii-stn et. 



DOCUMENTS, 



[translation.] 

Copy of a Letter from Don Luis de Onis to the Secretary 
of State. 

Philadelphia, 9th July , 1817. 

Sir, 

I am under the necessity of calling 
jour attention, and that of the President, to what has 
occurred at Baltimore, in relation to the two privateers, 
or pirates, which have lately entered the Bay of Chesa- 
peake, and now are within the proper limits of the state 
of Maryland ; the one commanded by captain Taylor, 
and the other by captain Stafford. It is notorious that 
these privateers, manned and armed in the ports of the 
Union, sailed on a cruise against the Spanish commerce, 
and have returned to the waters of Maryland with a part 
of the plunder and booty they have taken on board of 
Spanish and Portuguese vessels. 

For the due conviction of this outrage, the necessary 
orders or warrants were sent, at the request of the Consul 
of his Catholic Majesty in Baltimore, to the marshal of 
that city, to proceed to the arrest of the aforesaid priva- 

A 



4 



leers, and for its execution a gun boat was granted by the 
collector of the customs. All this, however, was in vain ; 
the marshal gave no effect to the orders issued for this 
arrest; and his Majesty's consul seeing that eight days 
had passed without the marshal taking a single step to 
fulfil the orders he was charged with, called upon him 
and claimed their execution, upon which he replied 
categorically " that he was unwilling to proceed to the 
arrest of the said privateers, because it was not his duty 
to execute it, except they had entered the port of Balti- 
more, but by no means in the Bay, although within the 
district of the state." The consul lately applied to the 
district attorney, complaining of this conduct ; and he 
acknowledged that indeed it was very extraordinary ; 
but he took no step to remedy it, or to enforce the ob- 
servance of the laws of the United States in a case of so 
scandalous an example. These facts speak for themselves, 
and the mere statement of them is sufficient to make you 
and the President thoroughly sensible of the monstrous 
consequences which the irregular conduct of this marshal 
may lead to. It is perfectly evident, that the public 
treaty between Spain and the United States, and the late 
act of Congress, sanctioned as a general law for the more 
strict observance of the neutrality of the same state.,, with 
foreign powers, are scandalously trampled under foot in 
Maryland ; and that the marshal, by formally disobeying 
the lawful authority of the state, and that of the general 
government of the Union, protected the hostilities and 
piracies carried on against the trade of a nation, in a state 
of peace and amity with the United States. I cannot 
therefore do less than to remonstrate, in the name of the 
king my master, against so manifest a violation of the 
neutrality of this republic, of its laws, and of the treaty 
existing between the two powers, and to request that you 
will be pleased to obtain of the President the most prompt 
and effectual orders to cause the marshal of Baltimore to 



5 



do his duty and all requisite justice to the subjects of his 
majesty. 

It is my duty also to call your attention and that of the 
President to the conduct of the adventurer, Sir Gregor 
M'Gregor, who since he was in arms with the bands of 
Insurgents in the Province of Venezuela, has come to 
these states, and been constantly engaged in enterprises to 
invade or disturb the tranquility of his Catholic Majesty's 
possessions in that part of the world. He lately recruited 
in Charleston a great number of adventurers, and among 
them several persons of note : — viz. one Rouse, son of a 
colonel of that name, an inhabitant of that city ; one 
Champion, who was a commissary in the service of the 
United States in the late war, and store keeper of ord- 
nance ; one Heath, a lawyer of the same place, and many 
others whose names I pass over. He purchased, under a 
borrowed name, a brig of considerable burthen, which he 
dispatched with passengers to New Orleans on the 19th 
of last month ; and, on the following day, he went on to 
Savannah in the stage, according to common report, to 
recruit more people. His subsequent proceedings and 
hostile preparations in the bosom of this Union, against 
the possessions of the Spanish Monarchy, are notorious, 
a** i announced with a scandalous publicity in many pa- 
pers of these states. I hope then, that you and the Pre- 
sident will apply the energy of your zeal for good order, 
and the observance of the public laws, by restraining 
these excesses and vexations, which compromise the neu- 
trality which the President has proposed to preserve in 
the dispute subsisting between the king my master, and 
some of his provinces in rebellion, and render null, as you 
may imagine, the security in which the government of 
his Catholic Majesty rests, in reliance of the safeguard 
of the said laws, and on that of the general principles of 
public good faith, which serve as the basis of the tran- 

a2 



6 



quility and friendly intercourse between the nations and 
governments of the world. 

1 renew, &c. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 

[translation.] 

The Chevalier Don Luis de Onis to the Secretary of 

State, 

Washington, 6th Dec. 1817. 

Sin, 

The message of the President em- 
braces two particular points in the paragraph in which he 
announces the actual state of the political relations be- 
tween Spain and the United States, of which I wish to 
have a precise and exact knowledge, to reconcile their 
true meaning with the sincerity and purity of the senti- 
ments of which the American government makes profes- 
sion, in conformity with those which animate his Catholic 
Majesty, when he anxiously seeks all possible means of 
settling the differences pending between the two nations, 
and of strengthening his friendship and good understand- 
ing with the United States on a basis which, being con- 
firmed by the most generous principles of good faith and 
mutual justice, may be lasting and unalterable, without 
leaving the seeds of discontent, or ground for fresh differ- 
ences in future. 

The two points I speak of are, 1st. What relates to 
Amelia Island ; and, 2d. What concerns Galvezton. The 
President announces, in respect to the first, that this island 
having been taken possession of by a party of people, 
who belong to no country, or, if they have belonged to 
any, they have, by their conduct, forfeited all right to 



7 



public consideration or toleration ; they having establish- 
ed, in the said island, a place of refuge, scandalous by its 
piracies, and seriously prejudicial, by a contraband trade, 
to the United States, chiefly in what regards the clandes- 
tine introduction of negroes into the territories of the 
Union, and the carrying off or flight of others from the 
same country : his Excellency has, therefore, determined 
to put a stop to this evil, and had given orders accordingly. 

It is my duty to remind you, sir, that the expedition 
which took possession of Amelia Island, was formed and 
armed at Charleston and Savannah, under the command 
of the adventurer Sir Gregor M'Gregor, and wholly 
composed of citizens of this republic, in violation of the 
laws of the United States, the law of nations, and the ex- 
isting treaty between Spain and the said states. I de- 
nounced this expedition to you at the time, and invoked 
the efficacious authority of the federal government to pre- 
vent it and punish the offenders. The expedition pro- 
ceeded, notwithstanding, from the limits and ports of the 
Union, to invade that island, and there commit the ex- 
cesses on which the President touches. After McGregor 
had left Amelia Island, the district court of South Caro- 
lina issued a Bench Writ to apprehend him wherever he 
might be found within the American territory. This writ 
could not, certainly, be issued without a legal evidence 
of the offence; nor could the offence be more enormous 
or more notorious in the face of the whole Union. It 
results from this, that there could be no just ground of 
converting into an act of hostility, or of public detriment 
to Spain, the evils which have flowed from the toleration 
of similar armaments in the bosom of this Union ; arma- 
ments which had for their object the invasion and plunder 
of the possessions of a friendly power. 

I, therefore, request you, sir, to be pleased to inform me 
of the measures the President may have taken on this 
point, and of his intentions in relation to it, in order that. 



8 



by informing the authorities of the King, in East Florida, 
thereof, those discontents may be avoided, to which an 
erroneous conception may give rise, and all unfortunate 
impressions dissipated, which might disturb the lively 
and sincere desire of conciliation and perfect harmony 
which actuates his Catholic Majesty. 

On tiie second point, relating to Galvezton, the Presi- 
dent announces, that, in that place, which it is contended 
falls w ithin the limits of the United States in consequence 
of the acquisition of Louisiana, a number of vagrant 
persons had before established themselves, and committed 
acts of piracy, very prejudicial to the trade of the United 
States, and that, therefore, his Excellency had also taken 
measures to correct those abuses. 

There are two things which I have to remark on this 
point; the first is, that the place of Galvezton has not 
been, nor ever could be, within the limits of Louisiana ; 
because at no time did it make a part of it. It has con- 
stantly belonged to the dominions of the crown of Spain, 
as a territory absolutely unconnected with, and distinct 
from, Louisiana; and, as such, ought to be maintained 
and respected, until the United States produce documents 
which establish their rights, and annul the titles, till now 
undisputed, of property and possession on the part of 
Spain, from the earliest times of its discovery and con- 
quest unto the present; and this will be determined as 
there may be occasion for it, and may be just, at the time 
of amicably arranging the question of boundaries bet ween 
the two nations, as his Catholic Majesty sincerely and 
earnestly desires, and as I have the hope to verify, in a 
short time, in his royal name, by means of the negociation 
which we have established. 

The second thing which I have to recal to you is, that 
the King's troops ^roveofT from Matagorda the vagabond 
freebooters who had taken possession of that point; in 
consequence of which, the same adventurers were forced 



9 



to evacuate Galvezton, where they had also established 
themselves ; so that neither of these places was afterwards 
attacked or infested by them or any other banditti. More- 
over, if by the occupation of Galvezton at that time, the 
United States have sustained injuries, it is notorious that 
Spain has suffered much greater, by the facility afforded 
to the pirates in capturing Spanish vessels, carrying them 
into that place, and there selling them to the citizens of 
this Union ; that from this magazine of plunder they 
conveyed the Spanish property to New Orleans and other 
ports of the United States, in American vessels, as is well 
known to you, sir, and to all the world. In any event, 
when the injuries reciprocally caused to American citizens 
by the government or subjects of Spain, or to the latter 
by the government or citizens of the United States, are 
compared and estimated, such an indemnification will be 
stipulated as is agreeable to justice and good faith. 

These remarks, and others equally obvious, cannot fail 
to convince you, as I am sure they will convince the whole 
world, that there was not the smallest motive for proceed- 
ing to acts of violence on either of the two points which 
form the subject of this note, and on which the President 
has touched in his message. I hope that the intentions of 
his Excellency will not differ from this opinion, and as 
well to avoid the disagreeable consequences which might 
arise from a misunderstanding, as to communicate to the 
King my master, the true state of things, I have to re- 
quest of you, sir, as I now do, a precise and satisfactory 
explanation on the abovementioned two points, namely, 
of the measures taken by the President in relation to 
them, and of his intentions upon the subject. I flatter 
myself that you will have the goodness to give me the 
said explanation as speedily as the case requires ; and in 
the mean time allow me to renew the assurances of my 
high consideration and respect. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 

Mr, John Quincy Adams, 8?c. fye. 



10 



[translation.] 
The Chevalier Don Luis de Onis to the Secretary of State, 

Washington, 10th December, 1817. 

Sir, 

Although I have but just arrived at the 
Federal City, as you know, I would not have lost an in- 
stant, after assembling the principal papers and docu- 
ments, relating to the differences pending between H. C. 
Majesty's government and that of the United States, in 
resuming and continuing with you, to a definitive conclu- 
sion, the negociation, which, by fortuitous causes, was 
suspended in the beginning of the present year, if 1 had 
not hoped to give you time for being so far disengaged, 
as to be able to devote to those important concerns, all the 
attention they require. But I ought no longer to defer, 
on my part, the necessary steps to open communications 
of such high interest, and consequently to proceed with 
you to the settlement and amicable arrangement of all the 
points in dispute between the two governments. 

You will doubtless have been convinced of the impos- 
sibility in which I was placed, of commencing this nego- 
tiation last winter, by reason of my not being furnished 
with instructions suitable to the new character which ul- 
terior circumstances had given to it, and my not having 
then received from my government such as extended to 
this case. I dispatched the Secretary of this legation to 
Madrid, to lay this deficiency before my sovereign, and 
the difficulty under which it placed me, of entering into 
a negociation which might effectually restore the most 
perfect harmony between the two powers, by putting an 
end to all disputes by means of a solemn transaction, 
which, being founded on the principles of mutual justice, 
and combined in good faith with those of reciprocal utility 
and convenience, might be completely satisfactory to both 
governments and both nations. His Majesty, tilled with 



11 



the greatest concern, on seeing that, by this unexpected 
accident, the negociation was delayed, notwithstanding 
his most sincere and decided wishes to conclude it, and 
strengthen his friendship and good understanding with 
the United States, as he had manifested from the moment 
of his restoration to the throne, gave immediate orders, 
that the necessary instructions should be communicated to 
me, for the execution of this sovereign trust in its fullest 
extent; and, to omit no means on his part, which might 
accelerate the desired epoch of this arrangement and defi- 
nitive transaction, he, at the same time, caused to be pro- 
posed, by his principal secretary of state, to the minister 
of the United States at Madrid, a project for the said tran- 
saction ; but it not having been admitted by that minister, 
who said that he was not authorised to resume and termi- 
nate in Spain the negociation already transferred to 
Washington, and committed to me ; the aforesaid secre- 
tary of legation returned without loss of time, and brought 
me the suitable instructions, accompanied with the posi» 
tive orders of H. M. that I should omit no means, as far 
as they might be compatible with justice, and the honour 
of his august character, to settle and terminate amicably 
all pending differences, and generously to satisfy the 
United States in every thing which might depend on the 
free will of his majesty. 

Such are the dispositions of the King, my master, and 
such the orders which he has communicated to me, anx- 
ious as he is to adjust all differences with the United States, 
and give them solemn proofs of his high esteem and sin- 
cere friendship. 

I am ready, therefore, to resume the negociation, and 
to pursue it with you, in all the points embraced by it, 
until its final close ; and I shall be very happy if, in doing 
so, I can satisfy all the desires and just hopes of the United 
States. 

Tn consequence, I request, Sir, that you would be 



12 



pleased to inform me, when you are ready to enter into 
this important negociation, and when it will be agreeable 
to you, that we commence the preliminary conferences; 
or, in case you should consider them unnecessary, that 
we discuss the means of agreeing on and fixing the most 
simple, expeditious and suitable mode of proceeding, 
with all possible dispatch, to the settlement and final ad- 
justment of all the points in dispute. 

I await your answer to this note, animated by the most 
lively desire and the most flattering hopes, of terminating 
all disagreements and discontents between the two nations, 
which, by their mutual interests and the generosity of their 
sentiments, have always lived in perfect union and friend- 
ship, and ought to cement them more and more for their 
common happiness. 

In the mean while, I renew to you my respects, and 
pray God to preserve you many years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
December 16, 1817. 

Don Luis de Onis. 
Sir, 

1 have had the honor of receiving your 
letter of the tenth instant, and shall be happy to receive 
you at the office of this department, the day after to-mor- 
row, at one o'clock, to confer with you upon the subject 
of it. I am instructed by the President on this occasion to 
assure you of the satisfaction with which he has learnt, 
that you are furnished with instructions from your go- 
vernment, adequate to the adjustment of all the differences 
between the two countries, and of the earnestness of his 
desire that the negociation may terminate i \ an arrange- 
ment mutually satisfactory to both parties. 

I am, with very distinguished consideration, &c. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



is 



[translation.] 
Don Luis de Onis, to the Secretary of State. 
Sir, 

After I had informed you in my note 
of the tenth of this month, and confirmed the same in our 
conference on the nineteenth, of the frank and friendly 
dispositions of his Catholic Majesty's government towards 
that of the United States, of his sincere desire to settle 
and terminate the differences pending between the two 
governments, in a manner just and satisfactory to both, 
and the positive orders I had received, with suitable in- 
structions to that effect, I also acquainted you, that the 
king, my master, being disposed to oblige the United 
States in whatever might be compatible with the rights 
and honor of the monarchy, and the dignity becoming his 
august character, would condescend to cede the two Flo* 
ridas to this republic, in consideration of an exchange or 
an equivalent which might be useful or convenient to 
Spain. But as this exehange or equivalent must consist 
of a territory belonging to the United States, and which 
may offer invariable points, marked by nature, to fix the 
divisional line between the possessions of the Union, and 
those of the crown of Spain, in a manner never to admit 
of doubt or controversy hereafter, His Catholic Majesty 
caused certain proposals for the said exchange or equiva- 
lent, to be made, through his principal secretary of state, 
to the minister of the United States at Madrid. They 
were decidedly declined by him, on the ground of their 
being inadmissible ; and I was informed by you that they 
are so considered by your government, and that conse- 
sequently it is necessary to have recourse to others which 
may be admissible in the existing state of things. 

Although the proposals made by his majesty's principal 
secretary of state to the minister of the United States at 
Madrid, were neither absolute or invariable, it is easy to 



14 



perceive that they are founded on the perfect conviction 
of his majesty, as to the irrefragable and notorious rights, 
by virtue of which the crown of Spain has possessed both 
Floridas, since she acquired them of England, and also 
the provinces and dislricts of country, possessed by her 
to the westward of Louisiana, and which have ever been 
independent of, or absolutely unconnected with and se- 
parate from that province, without having ever passed, 
since their discovery, conquest, and possession, under a 
foreign dominion. But, as the United States, since their 
acquisition of Louisiana, conceive they have a right to a 
greater extent of territory, both to the eastward and west- 
ward thereof, by setting on foot a dispute respecting the 
boundaries, which separate them from the Spanish posses- 
sions, and pretending that they ought to include part of 
those possessions, it is not strange that the exchange or 
equivalent, proposed for the Floridas, did appear inad- 
missible. It has therefore become indispensably necessary 
to free this question of boundaries from all obscurity, and 
to adjust and establish the true points, which divide or 
ought to divide the Spanish territories from those of this 
republic. Unless this inquiry and deliberation be previ- 
ously made, it is absolutely impossible to point out or 
judge of a just equivalent, which would be admissible and 
satisfactory to the two contracting parties, inasmuch as 
the requisite basis of a cession and its equivalent is want- 
ing. This basis, as is obvious, must be laid in the valua- 
tion of the territory specified in the contract, which valu- 
ation must be preceded by establishing the territory be- 
longing to Spain, and also that belonging to the United 
States. 

You cannot therefore but agree with me, sir, that it is 
absolutely necessary we should first settle the principal 
points relative to the question of boundaries, before we 
proceed to form and offer proposals for the cession of the 
f loridas. and for an equivalent to their value or cstima- 



15 



tion, or for the general and definitive settlement of all 
pending differences. Although this matter has already 
been the subject of negociation at Aranjuez, it cannot be 
said, that the discussion should be considered as termi- 
nated or exhausted, or that the American government, 
having then slated its positions and opinions on the sub- 
ject, it will not depart from them, although the opinion 
his Catholic Majesty sustains be different. It is unques- 
tionable that, in the discussion entered into at Aranjuez 
and early interrupted, not a single point or ground was 
touched on, on the part of the United States, that could 
serve as a support to their pretensions ; and that, on the 
part of Spain, there were produced titles, dates, docu- 
ments, and arguments, incontestibly proving, by abundant 
and irresistible evidence, the rights of the monarchy to 
the territory in question ; rights founded on property and 
immemorial possession, acknowledged by different pow- 
ers, and never disputed by any. This affair is conse- 
quently not confined to points of opinion, on which each 
party may respectively maintain that which is best suited 
to them ; it is reduced to unalterable truths, and to posi- 
tive and certain facts. I assure you, sir, in the name of 
my government, and the king, my master, solemnly pro- 
mises it, on the inviolability of his royal word, that the 
moment it shall be shown and proved that any of the ter- 
ritories now in dispute, do not belong to the crown of 
Spain, and on the contrary, that they do belong to the 
United States, his majesty will, with the greatest plea- 
sure, surrender to the disposal of the United States such 
territory or territories, as it shall be made to appear do 
not belong to the Spanish monarchy, and will, in good 
faith, acknowledge the right of the United States to the 
same. His majesty wishes for nothing that is not his own, 
or to which his crown has not a lawful right. I cannot 
but believe that the views of your government agree with 
those I have just stated, and that consequently we ought 



16 



to lose no time, in immediately resuming the discussion 
commenced at Aranjuoz, as to what relates to its princi- 
pal points, and, by impartially examining the grounds 
established by both governments, and the arguments and 
proofs which they both have to produce anew, in support 
of their rights or pretensions, acknowledge frankly and 
with good faith what belongs lawfully to Spain, and what 
belongs lawfully to the United States. Guided by the 
certain principles of reason and of mutual justice, it will 
be easy for us, by means of this investigation, to form a 
settled opinion, and come to a just result as to the boun- 
daries which do or ought to separate Louisiana from the 
Spanish possessions, and thus terminate this dispute. 
That, which is connected with the question of losses and 
injuries, is still more simple and easy to arrange, as you 
admitted, when we conversed on that point in our late 
conference ; and it will therefore prove no obstacle to our 
agreeing on the cession desired by the United States, and 
proceeding to it by means of a final settlement of all pend- 
ing differences, which may at the same time embrace 
whatever may be stipulated by this particular agreement. 

You may perceive, sir, that the mode I propose is the 
most simple, just, and proper for accomplishing the nego- 
tiation to be entered upon, and is that which was adopted 
by Mr. Erving, the minister of the United States, in his 
note of the twenty sixth of August, one thousand eight 
hundred and sixteen, in which he informed his majesty's 
government, that he was ready to enter into a full and frank 
discussion of all the points in dispute, and pledged himself 
thereto. As nothing further has been done on the part of 
Spain, than to transfer the negotiation to Washington, the 
same reasons subsist which then dictated the incontestible 
propriety and necessity of resuming the discussion ; rea- 
sons of which you are doubtless fully convinced, as they 
are not to be combated by any explanations, when cxami- 



17 

ned with good faith, because they are self evident and 
identified with the soundest principles of justice. 

As, in consideration of these reasons and principles, I 
hope you will have no objection to agree to a succinct ex- 
amination of the question of boundaries, and to a rational 
and fair enquiry into the titles and grounds on which each 
government rests its rights and pretensions, the natural or- 
der seems to require, that we should begin this examina- 
tion and enquiry with what relates to the eastern bounda- 
ries of Louisiana ; that, after establishing them as they 
ought to be, we may proceed to examine and to establish, 
in like manner, those which regard the western ; it being, 
nevertheless, well understood, that, neither by this act, nor 
any one whatever of those acts which contribute to produce 
the present negociation, it shall be inferred, that his Ca- 
tholic Majesty renounces, in any manner, the right he has 
or may have to reclaim against the non-fulfilment of the 
treaty of St. Ildephonso, concluded between Spain and 
France in the year 1800, and against the solemn stipulati- 
ons contained in the additional articles of the same treaty, 
forming an essential part of the contract between the two 
nations. 

The boundaries of Louisiana on that side join those of 
West Florida, and are so precisely established and fixed 
by public treaties, that I do not think your government 
can still persist in the opinion that Louisiana ought to be 
extended by this Spanish Province to the river Perdido. 
If, however, the imagination, resorting to specious subtle- 
ties and abstractions, carries us back to the period when 
France formed settlements on the left of the Mississippi, 
and possessed what are now two distinct provinces, name- 
ly, Louisiana and West Florida, still the certain and in- 
contestable fact will follow, that Spain acquired neither of 
the Floridas from France. That power, while in posses- 
sion of those territories, as she was until 1763, might 
name them, and point out their respective limits as she 



18 



thought fit. That is quite unimportant to the present 
question. It is certain, that, by the treaty of 1763, France 
ceded to England all the territory possessed by her to the 
eastward of the Mississippi, with the exception of the is- 
land of Orleans ; and it is also certain, that England uni- 
ted as her own, from that year, the same territory to Flo- 
rida, which, by the same treaty, Spain had ceded to her; 
and that, having added thereto the district and port of 
Pensacola, she called it West Florida, by which name, 
and no other, it has ever since been known. 

In the war of 1779, Spain conquered the said territory 
of West Florida from England ; and this right of con- 
quest was afterwards secured by a solemn treaty between 
England and Spain, in September, 1783. It is by this 
title that West Florida belongs, until the present day, to 
Spain, in addition to East Florida, which was also ceded 
by the said treaty. It is evident then that Spain neither 
acquired or received from France either of the Floridas, 
but that she acquired them both of England in 1783, 
classed as two distinct provinces, and universally known 
by the names of West Florida and the East Florida. She 
has from that period possessed them separate and distinct, 
without having ever compounded either of them with 
Louisiana, either in whole or in part. They are laid 
down distinct and separate in the maps, charts, and geo- 
graphies of all nations, from the year 1763, to the present 
day. In all the public acts and instruments which speak 
of them, they appear distinct and separate, as they do in 
the different treaties in which they are mentioned. 

This being the case, how can your government still 
maintain its opinion ? The United States acquired Loui- 
siana from France, such as she had acquired it from 
Spain, by the treaty of St. Ildephonso. In this treaty 
nothing is stipulated but the retrocession of Louisiana; 
nor is there a single word in the whole treaty that bears 
the most distant allusion to West Florida, which is the 



19 



object to which the dispute is reduced in that quarter. 
The clauses of the treaty are clear, precise and conclusive ; 
they fix the sense of the stipulation invariably, and leave 
no room for vague or specious constructions. The very 
title given to that treaty by the contracting parties, at 
once pointed out the territory restored by Spain to France, 
in exchange for the kingdom of Etruria. The title says, 
" Retrocession of Louisiana," and the word " retrocessi- 
on" has not nor ever had any other signification in the 
Spanish or French language, than the act of restoring to 
an individual or a nation, that which had before been re- 
ceived from him, or from it ; so that a different significa- 
tion cannot be given to this word (adopted by the contract- 
ing parties to express the nature of their stipulation) with- 
out changing the proper and genuine acceptation, in both, 
languages, of the definite term they have respectively 
employed, and without substantially changing the inten- 
tions which serve as the basis of the contract. 

The three clauses by which they afterwards go on to 
fulfil this convention, agree perfectly with the said title, 
and, by supporting and explaining each other, they fix it 
in a clear and precise manner. The first clause says, 
" that His Catholic Majesty restores Louisiana to France, 
with the same extent it had when possessed by Spain."" 
It is well known that no part of the Floridas or other Spa- 
nish possessions was then included in Louisiana, or an- 
nexed to it. At that time Louisiana was, in the hands of 
Spain, precisely what it was when ceded by France, in 
virtue of the treaty of 1764. In the same treaty its east- 
ern boundaries are marked by a line running eastward from 
Manchac point, thence following the course of the river 
Iberville and dividing the lakes Borgue, Ponchartrain and 
Maurepas, and finally terminating at the Gulph of Mex- 
ico, without leaving the smallest doubt as to the true 
points of the frontier. This is the territory which Spain 
retroceded to France, because it is the only one which she 

B 



20 



possessed under the name of Louisiana. The second 
clause agrees with the first, and opportunely declares and 
fixes its import. It says, u and with the same extent it 
had when possessed by France" — expressions, which ne- 
cessarily refer to the period of time which intervened be- 
tween the cession by France to England, of the territory 
possessed by her on the left bank of the Mississippi, and 
the cession made by the same power to Spain, of Louisi- 
ana. As the first of these two cessions took place in the 
year 1763, and the second in 1764, it is evident, that, du- 
ring that interval, France possessed Louisiana in the man- 
ner stated ; and with the same extent did she cede it to 
Spain — nor could she cede it with more, as she then pos- 
sessed nothing more in that part of the American continent. 

If a different meaning be given to this clause, by sup- 
posing that the contracting parties alluded in it to a for- 
mer period, when France possessed Louisiana jointly with 
the territory ceded by her to England in 1763, it would 
place this clause in absolute contradiction with the title, 
and with the first clause of the treaty of retrocession, be- 
cause, Louisiana not having, prior to the year 1763, while 
in the hands of France, the same extent it had when in the 
hands of Spain, at the time of the treaty of 1800 ; nor the 
same that it had when ceded by France to Spain in 1764 ; 
it follows that the second clause would be absurd and un- 
meaning, if it alluded to a period of time anterior to 1763. 
It would be absurd and unmeaning, because, having no 
other object than to explain and determine more circum- 
stantially the first clause, which is the fundamental one of 
the treaty and that which governs the others, it would ex- 
press a thing which could in no wise agree with the stipu- 
lations contained in it, since, by giving greater force to the 
import of the second clause, that which is considered the 
fundamental basis of the first would be rendered false and 
erroneous. It would be absolutely contradictory to the ex- 
press object and intent of the treaty, since Spain not having 



21 



received Louisiana from France with the extent in which 
she possessed it prior to the year 1763, but with that which 
it had when it was ceded in 1764, the retrocession, which, 
as I have just said, is the express object and intent of the 
treaty, could not take place. Spain could only cede back 
to France what she had received from hei ; nor could she, 
moreover, add to the retrocession any other particular ter- 
ritory of her dominions without expressing or mentioning 
it. Louisiana was ceded back to France, such as it was 
received from her, and as she possessed it in 1800, and had 
possessed it since she had acquired it. In fact, if Louisi- 
ana, while in the hands of Spain, included no part of West 
Florida, and if Spain had received no part thereof, or of 
the other Florida, from France, how could she cede it back 
to France, or cede it without naming it, or saying a sin- 
gle word which could allude to this idea ? Let us there- 
fore agree, that it is impossible to give an arbitrary con- 
struction to the second clause of the treaty of St. Ildephon- 
so^ or any other than that which it has and ought to have, 
in connexion with the first clause, and with the title and 
the express object of the instrument. You cannot but be 
fully convinced, Sir, of this truth ; and on proceeding to 
the examination of the third clause, you will find what I 
have just stated still more conprehensively and clearly de- 
monstrated. This clause says, cc and it ought to be after 
the treaties concluded between Spain and other powers." 
The only treaties to which this clause could refer, were 
the following : — 1. That of 1764, by which France ceded 
Louisiana to Spain. In this treaty the eastern boundaries 
of Louisiana are marked by the course of the Mississippi, 
and next by the river Iberville, the lakes Borgue, Fon- 
chartrain and Maurepas. It was consequently proper 
here to recall what was set forth in this treaty. — 2. That 
of 1783, between Spain and England, by which the latter 
confirmed to Spain the possession and property of West 
Florida which she had conquered during the war, and 

b 2 



22 



reded to her East Florida. It is a very fit moment to re- 
cai (lie inviolability of this treaty, since it is evident from 
it, that the Floridas are two provinces independent of 
Louisiana, absolutely unconnected with any distinct from 
it ; and that they came into the possession of Spain by 
very different titles, in consideration of which one thing 
cannot be compounded with another. And the 3d is that of 
1795, concluded between Spain and the United States. 
As in this treaty the frontiers between the United States 
and the Spanish possessions are described, and the Floridas 
are named as provinces, notoriously unconnected with and 
distinct from Louisiana; as by it the dismemberment of 
Natches, Nogales, &c. was effected, and as it is therein 
stipulated that the navigation of the Mississippi shall be 
free to the Americans and the Spaniards, and a place 
granted in favor of the former, for their commodities on 
the banks of the Mississippi, for which purpose New Or- 
leans was designated, for the term of three years, it was 
consequently thought proper to refer to this treaty, and 
show that it, as well as those of 1764 and 1783, arc and 
ought to be in full force and effect. 

You will perceive, Sir, that the three clauses stipulating 
the retrocession of Louisiana to France cannot be more 
conclusive ; that they are properly connected with and 
support each other, by declaring and explaining the in- 
tentions of the contracting parties, and the precise nature 
and extent of their contract ; so that it is impossible to give 
another interpretation to any of the said clauses, as that 
would place them in contradiction with each other ; and 
would moreover obscure the evident truth of facts and in- 
volve a monstrous violation of public treaties, without ex- 
cepting that of 1778, between France and the United 
State*. You doubtless bear in mind, Sir, that, by the 6th 
article of that treaty, France solemnly engages, never to 
acquire West Florida, or any portion of the territory ceded 
by her to England, in 1763. How then, could she, in 



23 



J 800, acquire West Florida, or any part of it, even al- 
though the treaty of St. Ildephonso were not specifically 
and solely confined to the retrocession of Louisiana, such 
as it was at that time and as it bad been since 1764 ? The 
understanding rejects all doubt <>n points so clear and evi- 
dent. By the treaty of St. IUlephonso France herself 
only received Louisiana such as it was in the hands of 
Spain, and as it was after its cession by France. It is 
well known that it is the act of delivery which completes 
the contract. France was satisfied with what was deli- 
vered to her, and neither claimed nor pretended to any 
thing more, Would the French government, under Na- 
poleon, have failed to claim this additional territory, if 
in that treaty there had been found a sing]e word of which 
it could avail itself, or the smallest pretext for making 
the claim ? Certainly not. France knew perfectly well 
that Louisiana did not comprehend a greater extent of ter- 
ritory, and that all was delivered that belonged to her at 
the time the contract was made. 

The French government itself, after the dispute arose 
between the L T nited States and Spain, which is now pend- 
ing, declared, in two official notes, "that the eastern 
boundaries of Louisiana are pointed out by the course of 
the Mississippi, and by the river Iberville, and the Lakes 
Ponchartrain and Maurepas ; that Spain has ceded back 
nothing more to France, nor had the latter a right to pre- 
tend to more; and that having substituted the United 
States in her rights, they could pretend to nothing more, 
in virtue of the cession or sale made to them of Louisiana. 

"The 12/ h of Fructidor — 12th year. 

u The eastern boundaries of Louisiana are pointed out 
by the course of the Mississippi, and afterwards by the 
river Iberville, the lakes Ponchartrain and Maurepas. 
This is the line of demarcation which bounds theterritory 
ceded by Spain to France by the treaty of the 30th of Ven- 
tose, 9th year. Nothing beyond this limit could have 



24 



been asked for by France, and as she did nothing more 
than substitute the United States in the right which she 
had acquired, they cannot require of Spain a more exten- 
sive cession, unless such cession be negotiated and stipu- 
lated between them and Spainbj some further convention. 

" The 5th of Germinal, IS/// rear. 
" This question could notbecomethe subject of a serious 
discussion between Spain and the United States, except 
the conditions of the treaties of cession which have suc- 
cessively transferred Louisiana to France, and to the 
Americans, were lost sight of." 

" Spain could only cede back to France the territory 
she had received from her : the rights of France were 
afterwards transferred to the United States, and they were 
so only to the same extent." 

If, notwithstanding this full and irresistible demonstra- 
tion, you should be of opinion, Sir, that it is still necessary 
to clear up this point, let us have recourse to France, that 
she may afford all the explanations that are judged to be 
necessary or useful, since nothing is more proper than 
that she and Spain should know to what the treaty con- 
cluded at St. lldephonso is reduced, and they alone are 
competent to clear up any doubts that may have arisen as 
to the import of the expressions employed in the said 
treaty. It is unquestionable that it agrees with the prin- 
ciple generally acknowledged, that when a law or treaty 
offers any doubt, from the obscurity or ambiguity of the 
words contained in it, the party which made the law or 
the treaty, is the one which should explain the meaning 
of such words, and remove the doubt which has occurred. 

I would now procred to declare what are, or ought to 
be, the western boundaries of Louisiana, and what are 
those which separate, or ought to separate it from the 
Spanish posses-ions, should I not apprehend to make this 
note too diffuse : reserving myself, therefore, to discuss 
this point in a separate note, I now recall to your consi- 



25 



deration the chief grounds and arguments on which Spain 
founds her exclusive right to the whole extent of West 
Florida, in order that when we are agreed upon this point, 
we may proceed to alike examination and deliberation on 
the western boundaries of Louisiana. 

But, although this is the order pointed out by reason 
and justice, in the actual state of the pending differences, 
nevertheless, that we may judge upon the most exact in- 
formation of the grounds and arguments of each govern- 
ment respectively, and, after agreeing on what belongs to 
Spain, and what belongs to the United States, we may be 
enabled to lay the basis of a general and final settlement of 
all differences, if you should think that there can be a 
more expeditious mode of settling and terminating them 
without prejudicing the inviolable rights of the crown of 
Spain, and on principles of reciprocal utility and con- 
venience, you may communicate your ideas thereon to 
me, with the certainty that it is the earnest wish of his 
Catholic Majesty, that this negotiation may be amicably 
terminated, for which purpose he has given me decisive 
orders and instructions : and I again assure you, Sir, that 
I shall think myself very happy, if, in this negotiation, 
I can satisfy all the just desires and hopes of the United 
States, for which, 1 shall omit nothing that is in my 
power, or may be compatible with the rights and honour 
of his Majesty's crown. 

I renew to you, Sir, the assurances of my respects, and I 
pray God to preserve you many years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 



[translation.] 
The chevalier Don Luis de Onis, to the Secretary of State. 

Washington, 5th Jan. 1818. 

Sir, 

In my note of the twenty-ninth of last 
month I proved to you to a degree of moral demonstration 



•26 



which I think to be fully convincing, what are and ought 
to be the eastern boundaries of Louisiana ; and I hope 
such incontrovertible, decisive reasons cannot fail to bring 
you fairly to acknowledge that Louisiana neither does 
nor can include any part of West Florida. As I have not 
yet received your answer to the said note, it was my in- 
tention to wait for it, and not proceed to the examination 
of the second point of the question of boundaries, before 
we had agreed on and settled what relates to the first, in 
order to proceed methodically and not to involve or em- 
barrass the plain and expeditious course of this investiga- 
tion ; but, being desirous of not losing an instant, in explain- 
ing every point relative to so important a matter, I antici- 
pate the examination of the western boundaries of Louis- 
iana, which is the second point of the question, thereby 
facilitating whatever may claim your attention as to both 
in their respective order, and enabling you to comprehend 
the truth at once. 

I might contend that the United States having received the 
province of Louisiana from France, with no greater extent 
than it had when France received it from Spain in eigh- 
teen hundred, and when Spain acquired it from France in 
seventeen hundred and sixty four, that and no other ought 
to be the extent which properly belongs to it, without the 
necessity of recurring to any other reasons or grounds than 
those resulting from the treaty of St. Ildephonso ; since 
Spain having ceded back to France in 1800 only what she 
had received from her in 1764, being that which France 
sold to the United States, it is easy to investigate and es- 
tablish what were, and in all that period continued to be, 
the proper extent and limits of Louisiana ; but I am will- 
ing to admit, that France did substitute the United States 
in all the rights or pretensions she had or could have at 
another period, as to what regards the western boundaries 
of that colony when hers, although nothing to that effect is 
expressed or insinuated in the treaty between France and 



27 



the United States, by which the latter acquired it : and 
that the contrary is evidently to be inferred from the fact, 
that France inserted, word for word, in this treaty, the 
conclusive clauses of that of St. lldepbonso, which speak 
simply and precisely of the retrocession of Louisiana. I 
admit (to go on to a more copious and irresistible demon- 
stration) that the United States have succeeded to all the 
rights which France may have had at another period ; and 
I call your attention, Sir, to the following observations, 
before I enter on the examination of the data or grounds on 
which the United States rest their claims of extending, in 
that quarter, the boundaries of Louisiana to the Rio Bravo 
del Norte. 

It is well known, that, for ages before France thought 
of forming establishments on the Mississippi, and therefore 
long before she had made any in Canada, the crown of Spain 
possessed the whole territory around the Gulf of Mexico, 
from the Peninsula of Ucatan to the southern cape of Flo- 
rida. If the eastern part of the said Gulph, as far as Pa- 
nuco, the whole of which was then known under the ex- 
tensive (generico) name of Florida, was not actually peo- 
pled by Spaniards, it is notorious and indubitable, that it 
was discovered by them as early as the year 151 1, under 
the expedition of J uan Ponce de Leon ; that all the coast 
from the present Florida to Panuco was explored by Fran- 
cisco de Gary in 1518, and also by Fernando de Soto, and 
continually by other Spanish commanders until 1561, 
when it was explored and described by Angel de Villafane 
and Jorge Ceron ; said discoveries and descriptions having 
been made in pursuance of royal order issued for that 
purpose, papers of that description being still extant, and 
it was confirmed, that, from those remote periods, Spain 
was established as the mistress and possessor of all that 
coast and territory ; and that she never permitted foreign- 
ers to enter the Gulph of Mexico, nor any of the territor- 
ies lying around it, having repeated the royal orders by 



28 



which she then enforced the said prohibition and charged 
the Spanish vice-roys and governors with the most strict 
observance of the same. 

The right and dominion ot the crown of Spain to the 
north-west coast of America, as high up as the Californias, 
is not less certain and indisputable, the Spaniards having 
explored it as far as the 7th degree, in the expedition 
under Juan de Fuca in 1592, and in that under the Ad- 
miral Fonte, to the 55th degree in 1640. 

The dominion of Spain in these vast regions being thus 
established, and her rights of discovery, conquest and pos- 
session being never disputed, she could scarcely possess a 
property, founded on more respectable principles, whether 
of the law of nations, of public law, or any others which 
serve as a basis to such acquisitions, as all the independent 
kingdoms and states of the earth consist of. 

Confining ourselves at present to the Mexican Gulph, 
and to the Spanish provinces situated to the westward of 
Louisiana, we shall see in what manner Spain extended 
her population and founded settlements in different parts 
of the vast territory, of which she was the mistress and 
possessor in this part of the new world. All the country 
extending from the Rio de las Palmas to the confines of 
Panuco, in latitude 48, was then included under the name 
of Florida and crossed the Mississippi. From the time of 
the expeditions undertaken to explore it, in 1512 by Juan 
Ponce, in 1525 by Vasquezde Ayllon, in 1527 by Panfilo 
de Narvaez, and in 1538 by Hernando de Soto, the Spa- 
niards were incessantly engaged in advancing their dis- 
coveries and settlements in this extensive country, not only 
in the time of Luis Moscoso, and of Pedro Melendez, be- 
tween the years 1542 and 1545, but they were constantly 
so in the time of all their successors. At the time of their 
first expeditions, they landed in the bays of Santo Rosa 
and Espiritu Santo or St. Bernardo, surveyed the whole 
coast, and crossed the Mississippi. They penetrated into 



29 



the countries of Hirrhigua, Moscoso, Umbarracuxi, Au- 
rera, Gcali, Apalachue, Atapalia, Cofa Mobilia, Chasquin, 
Guigate, Ohanpue, Ghachoqua, and others which it would 
be too tedious to enumerate. The same Hernando de Soto, 
after having in person surveyed the coast and interior of 
the country, crossed the Mississippi, and, penetrating as 
far as the Rio Negro, in J 542, died at Guachoya. 

No European nation had yet attempted to disturb the 
Spaniards in their possessions in the new world ; none 
had trod on any point of those territories, and the Spa- 
niards continued extending their establishments as the 
only nation w r hich had acquired the possession and the 
property of that part of the American continent and 
islands. They gave rise to the new kingdoms of Leon 
and Santander, in the year 1595, and to the province of 
Cohaguila in 1600. They founded that of Texas in 1690, 
establishing missions, hamlets, and posts, under the name 
of Presidior, such as those of Bahia del Refugio, St. 
Antonio, Espiritu Santo, St. Juan, Nacogdoches, Aye- 
ses, and San Miguel de los Adaes, a short distance from 
the Rio Roxo (Red River;) extending themselves to the 
banks of that river, long before they had established 
themselves in New Mexico, where they bnilt the capital 
of Santa Fe, in 39° N. latitude, and opened and worked 
mines in its neighbourhood. From thence they spread 
themselves wide of the rivers that empty from north to 
south into the Missouri, communicating and trading with 
the Indian nations ; so, from that time, Spain considered 
all the territory lying to the east and north of New Mex- 
ico, as far as the Mississippi and Missouri, as her pro- 
perty. These dominions and settlements of the crown of 
Spain were connected with those which she had on the 
Gulph of Mexico ; that is to say, with those of Florida 
and the coasts of the province of Texas, which, being on 
the same gulph, must be acknowledged to belong to Spain, 
since the whole circumference of the gulph was hers, 



30 



Inch property, incontestibly acquired, she had con- 
stantly maintained among her possessions, not because 
she occupied it throughout its whole extent, which was 
impossible, but on the principle generally recognized, 
that the property of a lake or narrow sea, and that of a 
country however extensive, provided no other power is 
already established in the interior, is acquired by the 
occupation of its principal points. 

These premises being established and not to be shaken, 
as they are all supported by history, ancient monuments, 
tradition, and irrefragable documents, let us proceed to 
examine, from their origin, the grounds on which your 
government maintains its pretensions. 

As early as the commencement of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, France and England began to form expeditions in 
imitation of the Spaniards, and to discover points for 
settlements in that part of America. The French expe- 
ditions penetrated into Canada by the River St. Law- 
rence, and those of the English were directed to different 
parts of the coast on the Atlantic. Hence originated the 
basis on which the two nations afterwards founded and 
extended their respective settlements. I shall now only 
speak of those made by the French, as they serve as a 
support to the actual pretensions of the United States. 
Francis Ribaut, an adventurer of that nation, had already 
penetrated into Florida with some followers, towards the 
end of the sixteenth century, and built the fort, called 
Charles Le Fort ; but this rash enterprize on the territory 
of the crown of Spain was immediately overthrown and 
dissipated, the Spanish governor Pedro Melendez having 
attacked and taken the fort, and made prisoners of Ribaut 
and all his people. Mention is likewise made by some 
writers of another Frenchman, called Rene de Laudon- 
niere, who is said (o have landed from the squadron of 
admiral Coligny on the coast of Florida in the year 1564, 
and built a Fort which he named Carolin, about the spot 



81 



"where Pensaoola now stands; but the same writers add, 
that the Spaniards immediately attacked the French, put 
them to death, and razed the fort or redoubt they had 
built. Others say that it was on that same fort that the 
Spaniards afterwards built the fortress of St. Augustin. 
So vague and so uncertain is the information respecting 
these particular adventurers. The story related of a 
Recollect friar, called father Hennepin, is still more ridi- 
culous, who is said to have been made a prisoner by the 
Indians at the time they were at war with the French of 
Canada, and taken to the Illinois, whence he was occu- 
pied in exploring the country as far as the banks of the 
river St. Louis, or Mississippi, of which he took posses- 
sion in the name of Louis the XIV. and gave it the name 
of Louisiana (doubtless in his secret thoughts and by a 
mere mental act.) It is added, that this Friar escaped 
from the Illinois and returned to Canada, where he related 
all he had seen, and afterwards published it in France 
more circumstantially in a memoir, which he dedicated to 
the celebrated Colbert. These accounts and others of the 
like nature are contemptible in themselves, even although 
the facts they relate were authentic, since nothing can be 
inferred from them that can favor the idea stated by those 
who speak of these transient adventures and incursions. 

Let us see what importance can be attached to what is 
said of Bernard de la Salla^, who, in 1679, descended from 
Canada to the Mississippi, and there built fort Crcvacceur, 
according to M. du Pratz, or fort Prudhomme 5 according 
to others. What is certain amounts to this, that he only 
made a rapid incursion from Canada to the Mississippi, 
as any other adventurer might do, crossing the territories 
of another nation ; that he returned to Quebec without 
any further result than that of an imperfect exploration 
of the country ; and that he embarked at Quebec for 
France, from whence he returned in 1684 with an expe- 
dition composed of four vessels, commanded by captain 



32 



Beaujeu, to explore the mouth of the Mississippi. This 
expedition entered the Gulph of Mexico, on the 12th of 
December of the following year. La Salle being- deceived 
in his reckoning by the currents of the gulph, could not 
find the mouth of the river, and being overtaken by a 
storm on the coast of the province of Texas, he was 
obliged to take shelter in the bay of St. Bernard. Two 
of his vessels were captured by the Spanish cruizers, 
another was lost in the bay, and Beaujeu returned to 
France in the only one that escaped. La Salle having 
landed with some people and ten pieces of artillery, then 
built a small fort as a protection against the Indians, and 
was obliged to change his ground three different times; 
notwithstanding which, the Clancoates Indians inhabiting 
the adjoining country forced him to abandon the fort, and 
retreat by the Rio de la Trinidad (Trinity River. J While 
on this retreat, he formed a project of penetrating into the 
interior of the country, to see if he could discover the 
fabulous mines of Santa Barbara, but he was assassinated 
on his route by his own people ; and such was the result 
of the famous French expedition, so much talked of. 
The Indians fell immediately on fort St. Louis, and mas- 
sacred the small garrison left by La Salle. The remainder 
of the French who accompanied him shared the same 
fate ; being dispersed in different directions after the fall 
of their chief, they perished by the hands of the Indians. 

In the meantime, news of this incursion having reached 
Aiexico, the viceroy, fearful of a repetition of similar at- 
tempts, held a council of war, to deliberate on the affair, 
in obedience to the royal order issued by Philip the 2d, 
enjoining the extermination of all foreigners who would 
dare to penetrate into the Gulph of Mexico. An expedi- 
tion was then resolved on, to be formed at Cohaguila, 
under the command of Alonzo de Leon, to scour the 
country, and hunt out the French, if any were still re- 
maining. Having set out with the necessary force, he 



33 



arrived on the 22d of April, 1689, at the \ lace where La 
Salle had built Fort St. Louis, and on the 24th at the 
entrance of the bay ; where he fell in with the remains 
of the French vessel that had been wrecked. Having 
heard in his march that some of La Salle's companions 
were still wandering about the country, or had taken re- 
fuge with the Indians, he shaped his course towards the 
nation of the Asimais, and was received by them with 
marks of friendship and respect; he however found no 
traces of the French, as no more of them were in exist- 
ence. 

Alonzo de Leon treated the Asimais with the greatest 
kindness, and called them Texas, which in their language 
signifies "friends." On the 22d of May of the same 
year, he wrote to the viceroy, informing him that there 
existed neither French, nor any other foreigners in the 
whole country ; that the Texas Indians professed great 
attachment and good will to the Spaniards ; and that it 
would be very proper to establish missions and garrisons 
throughout that country to prevent any future attempt or 
incursion of foreigners, and to preserve the conquest. 
This subject having been deliberated on in Mexico, the 
mission of St. Francisco de Texas was founded in 1690, 
after that nation had voluntarily submitted to the crown 
of Spain. The viceroy of Mexico continued to take 
effectual measures for protecting the country and prevent- 
ing the intrusion of any French adventurers. The 
court of Spain, on being informed of what had passed , 
renewed rigorous orders to the same effect, and also gave 
directions for the instruction and government of the 
Indians. Such were the objects of the expedition under 
Don Domingo de Teran, and of that which was effected 
under the command of Don Gregorio Salinas, in May, 
1693. Since that period the province of Texas has con- 
tinued in perfect tranquility under the Spanish govern- 



34 



ment, and no further attempts were made by the French 
to penetrate into any part of it. 

You see, Sir, that the excursion of La Salle can give 
France no rig-lit to that province, which had long before 
been acknowledged to be and was incorporated in the Spa- 
nish dominions ; such an excursion was in fact nothing 
more than the rash attempt of a foreigner to explore part 
of the territories of another nation : and is not substantially 
different from that made by M. Le Vaillant in the country 
of the CarTres to the north east of the Cape of Good Hope ; 
by which, however, France acquired no right to that part 
of the Dutch possessions, although they were still desert 
when the said Le Vaillant explored them. What territo- 
ries are there in the world, especially in extensive domi- 
nions, still new and thinly peopled, in which excursions 
of that nature have not been made by individuals of foreign 
countries, sometimes of neighbouring nations, which is 
the most common; and sometimes of those, which, although 
at a distance, actuated either by curiosity or ambition, 
undertake to explore unknown countries, inhabited by 
other people and governed by other powers ? 

Nor can I refrain from recalling here what has been 
written and thoroughly investigated, touching the pre- 
tended settlement of the French in the Illinois and the 
Arkansas. 

Whether they were some of the individuals of La Salle's 
expedition, who had survived it, as Mr. Du Pratzhasit, 
or whether they were other adventurers from Canada, it 
seems beyond a doubt, that some Frenchmen did penetrate 
as far as the Arkansas, towards the end of the 17th cen- 
tury, or the beginning of the 18th, on which point howe- 
ver the records of that period do not exactly agree. En- 
terprising people from Canada, both Frenchmen and na- 
tives; communicated with the Indian tribes, and pene- 
trated far into the interior to purchase cattle and for other 
purposes of traffic. — Some of them therefore fixed them- 



35 

selves at the post of Arkansas, not as settlers, but as agents, 
to carry on the trade between Canada and the nations of 
this District. The same took place at the post of the Illi- 
nois, long before the first foundation of the French colony 
of Louisiana was thought of. 

Father Marguez, a Jesuit, had penetrated, in 1671, as 
a missionary, into the Indian nations called Saulteux, as 
far as Changwanigung, on lake Superior : and in the year 
following, one Solict, with a view to explore the Missis- 
sippi, proceeded from Canada to Changwanigung Point. 
After joining Father Marguez, they both advanced and 
succeeded in penetrating to that river, by the Ouiscon- 
sin. — They met with a considerable population in the 
country of the Illinois, at the mouth of the river Moin- 
gora ; and after promising to visit them on their return, 
they suggested to those Indians the idea of entering the 
country by the river since called Illinois ; and the Indians 
did so, and settled in a district known by the Great Rock, 
or Great Penasco, about five leagues higher up than the 
mouth of the river. Solict and Father Marguez could 
descend the Mississippi no further than the Arkansas, and 
on their return from their excursion, they found the Illi- 
nois encamped at the Great Penasco. Solict continued his re- 
treat; and Father Marguez determined to remain with these 
Indians to instruct them in the principles of the Christian 
faith. In this attempt he was succeeded by other missiona- 
ries, who afterwards proceeded to found a church there, suf- 
ficiently regular, composed of Illinois and Canadians, who 
had met and united with each other: these people were 
no ways subject to the French government ; but lived in- 
dependent, in the manner of several Indian nations border- 
ing on the United States. Several other Indians of the 
Miami and Shawnoe tribes came and settled themselves 
near the Big Rock, or Great Penasco; but they disagreed, 
and soon after dispersed. A party of the Illinois went 
down the river and settled at Cahokia, on the left bank of 



30 



the Mississippi, 15 or 16 leagues below the mouth of the 
Illinois. Other missionaries followed them; and thus 
went on this kind of colony, informal, or wandering, but 
always independent of, and unconnected with, the French 

of Canada. 

Let us now speak of the settlements of the French, in 
the country called by them Louisiana. The first spot 
occupied by them in this country was the Bay of Biloxi, 
about SO leagues to the eastward of the Mississippi, in the 
year 1699, or more strictly speaking in 1700; and Mobile, 
a little farther eastward, where they established themselves, 
was, during two and twenty years, the capital of their 
new colony. 

From that time they observed the greatest caution in 
the settlements they formed on the banks of the Missis- 
sippi. Seventeen years had passed since the foundation of 
their colony, when they ventured to raise some huts on 
the left bank of that river; and this was on the spot now 
occupied by New Orleans, which five years afterwards 
became the capital of the colony, when the intimate rela- 
tions between France and Spain, not only by virtue of 
the family compact, but more particularly by the eleva- 
tion of Philip the 5th to the throne of Spain, favored the 
toleration of a dexterous encroachment on a territory which 
was acknowledged to belong to that monarchy. In 1722, 
the French succeeded in fixing some German families on 
the right bank of the river opposite to the settlements 
which they already had above and below the new city of 
Orleans. They afterwards settled some Acadians a little 
higher up, and finally some others at point Coupee. But 
the whole limits of these cottages or settlements did not 
extend to more than 15 or 20 acres of land upon the front 
of the river ; so that the French seeing a want of cattle, 
and feeling the necessity of establishing herds to keep up 
a supply, turned their views to the extensive and fertile, 
prairies of Atacapas; and the governor of Louisiana there- 



37 



upon applied to the commandant of the interior provinces 
of Mexico, for permission to establish some herds only, 
which was frankly granted to him by the Spanish com- 
mandant. In fact they had nothing more than cattle es- 
tablishments in Atacapas and Opelousas, when the colony 
was transferred to Spain by the treaty of 1764. They 
had never gone farther; and it is to the Spaniards that the 
colony is indebted for the extension, population, and cul- 
tivation of that part of the territory afterwards ceded back 
to France and transferred by her to the United States, as 
was also the case in the settlement of La Forche, Ovoyells, 
the Rapids, and Quachita, which did not previously exist, 
but were formed by the Spaniards within the proper li- 
mits of the monarchy. 

From hence you will clearly see, Sir, that so far from 
Spain having retained any point belonging to French 
Louisiana, when she ceded it back by the treaty of St. 
Ildephonso, she left incorporated with it many points, 
settlements and territories, which in truth did not belong 
nor ever had belonged to the said colony. 

It would be too fatiguing to trace step by step all the 
incursions of the French from Canada or from Louisiana 
into other points of the Spanish dominions, bypassing 
through Indian nations, or uninhabited countries. I can- 
not, however, omit touching on the accidental circum- 
stance which gave rise to their settlement at Kaskaskias, 
20 leagues below Cahokia. The inhabitants of Illinois, 
who had no connection or dependance whatever on Cana- 
da, at length undertook to go down the river, and trade 
with the French at Biloxi and Mobile bay; and these 
traders having discovered fertile and beautiful prairies on 
the right of the small river Kaskaskias, several of the 
French settlers removed thither in the year 1703, and 
founded what is now the town of Kaskaskias; but they 
always lived independent and in alliance with the Indians, 
until the Louisiana Company sent M. de Boisbriant, as 

c 2 



38 



the king's lieutenant, with troops, to reduce and direct 
this settlement. It was afterwards considerably increased 
in the hands of the French, who successively formed the 
settlements of Chartres, St. Philip, Prairie des Roche, 
and Prairie Dupont; but still, as you perceive, Sir, on 
the left of the Mississippi; and it was not till several years 
afterwards, that they settled St. Genevieve, opposite Kas- 
kaskias, on the right of the said river, an inconsiderable 
settlement, which made no progress until the country was 
ceded to England. 

In fine, all the written documents and historical evi- 
dence, relating to French Louisiana, agree in dividing 
it into Upper and Lower, and proving, that Lower Lou- 
isiana is bounded on the north by Bayou Manchac, by 
which it communicates from the River Mississippi to the 
Iberville; and that Upper Louisiana commences above 
the said Bayou, the Post of Natchez being the principal 
settlement of the French in that quarter, in whose neigh- 
bourhood they cultivated tobacco. The settlement of 
Natchitochez, which they afterwards formed, was consi- 
dered as depending on Upper Louisiana. 

It would be easy to prove that this latter settlement was 
made by the French within the Spanish territory, and 
merely through the condescension or suffrnnce of the Vice- 
Roys of Mexico, and the Governors of the Province of 
Texas. Before the French had founded New Orleans, 
there already existed the Spanish missions and settlements 
of St. Francisco, La Purisima Concepcion, San Jose, and 
Na. Sa. de la Guadalupe, at a very short distance from 
Natchitochez: and the right of property and possession 
on the part of the crown of Spain to the whole of this ter- 
ritory, as far as the Mississippi, was notorious. 

I am aware that the French attacked the missions of 
Texas during the war between France and Spain under 
the regency of the Duke of Orleans; that for this purpose 
they proceeded from the post of Natchitochez, and that 



39 

the Spaniards retreated to San Antonio de Berar, until 
the Governor of the province, the Marquis de Valero, 
advanced to chastise and keep the enemy in check. This 
commander marched against them in 1719, drove them 
from the Spanish posts, and obliged them to shut them- 
selves up in Natchitochez. 

This expedition is connected with the authentic facts, 
of which Mr. du Pratz has made up a ridiculous and fa- 
bulous tale, in his History of Louisiana, when he speaks 
of a Frenchman of the name of St. Dennis, and supposes 
certain conventions entered into between him and the 
Duke de Linares, viceroy of Mexico. In 1715, St. Den- 
nis penetrated from Mobile to the Spanish garrison of San 
Juan Baurista, with three companions and a passport, on 
pretence of going to buy cattle in the missions of Texas, 
but in reality to carry on a contraband trade, and explore 
the country. Both he and his companions were seized 
and conveyed to Mexico. After a variety of adventures, 
St. Dennis made his escape, and was one of those who set 
out from Natchitochez with other Frenchmen, to attack 
the inhabitants of Texas, as I before stated. 

After this event, the Marquis de Agnayo came to Tex- 
as, re-established the old missions, and founded new ones, 
viz : Tilar, Adaes, Loreto at the bay of Espiritu Santo or 
St. Bernard, and Dolores, known by the name of Orqui- 
zaco ; he greatly improved San Antonio de Bexas, and 
placed the whole frontier of the province in a respectable 
state. Thus, the Spanish settlements remained tranquil 
until Louisiana was ceded to Spain, when the garri- 
sons of Adaes and Orquizaco were suppressed, as being no 
longer necessary. 

As a further proof that the post of Natchitochez was 
acknowledged, even by the French, as being within the 
Spanish territory, I shall add two facts : The first is, that 
when Captain Don Domingo Ramon came with a party 
to Texas, after St. Dennis and his followers were sent to 
Mexico, he paid a friendly visit to the French at Natch i- 



40 



tochez, and entered that fort with the Royal Baton and 
Insignia, as a sign of the dominion and jurisdiction of 
Spain, to which the French made no opposition. The 
second fact is, that in the year 1742, the French Gover- 
nor of Natch itochez, being desirous to remove that fort ? 
which had been injured by an inundation, somewhat fur- 
ther from the bank of the Rio Roxo (the Red River) he 
waited on the Spanish Governor of the Adaes, Don Manuo 
de Sandoval, and requested the necessary permission to 
do so. Sandoval granted it, as the site to which he wish- 
ed to remove it, was no farther than a musket shot from 
its former situation. Notwithstanding, the Vice Roy of 
Mexico on being informed of this act of accommodation, 
highly disapproved it, and dispatched Colonel Don Fran- 
cisco de Britoto Adaes to supercede Governor Sandoval, 
and bring him under guard to Mexico, to be tried there 
before a Court Martial; which was carried into effect 
with all the vigor of the law. 

It is unquestionable, from the historical series of facts 
and the most unexceptionable documents, that the pro- 
vince of Texas extended to the Mississipi, and that the 
French never crossed the river into that district, but 
through the sufferance or permission of the Spanish go- 
vernors ; and that in consequence of the former abusing 
the generosity with which they were permitted to trade 
with the Indians of that territory, and to hold, for that 
purpose only, the posts of Natchez and Natchitochez, 
positive orders were issued to drive the French from the 
whole district and destroy the said posts. The Spanish 
commandant advanced with a sufficient force to execute 
those orders ; but he acceded to the proposals of the 
French at Natch itochez, which were confined to these, 
that Arroyo Hondo, which is mid-way between Natchito- 
chez and Adaes, should be considered as the dividing line, 
until the determination of the two courts. In this state 
things remained without further change, and so continu- 



41 



ed until the cession of Louisiana to Spain relieved those 
provinces of Spanish America from all embarrassment and 
trouble from the French. But it always was an undenia- 
ble fact, established by irresistible titles and documents, 
that the French neither held, nor had held, to the west- 
ward of the Mississippi in 1719, any other post than Nat- 
chitochez, which they held merely by the condescension 
of Spain ; and that the Spanish settlement of Adaes, only 
five leagues distant from the Rio Roxo (Red River) ex- 
isted much earlier, and did so exist until Louisiana was 
transferred to Spain. The parochial records of Nacog- 
dochez and Adaes, with the registers of births, baptisms, 
and deaths, attest it still more circumstantially, as well as 
the proceedings of the pastoral visits made in 1705, by 
Don Primo Feliciano Marin, bishop of the new kingdom 
of Leon, who visited the district of Adaes and the whole 
province of Texas. 

The rights which Spain always had to all the terri" 
tories to the North and East of New Mexico, as far as 
the right bank of the Mississippi and the Missouri, is 
proved with equal certainty. All these territories, and 
the different branches, falls, and waters of the Mississippi, 
were always comprehended within the line of the Spanish 
dominion in that part of America from the earliest periods 
of its discovery and conquest. Although the French 
penetrated several times from Mobile and Biloxi, to dif- 
ferent parts of that line, they never acquired any right to 
them. Their excursions were confined to trading, or 
smuggling, or exploring the country. The huts or posts ? 
which they had in some Indian nations, were trifling esta- 
blishments, clandestine and precarious, which they were 
unable to preserve. The Spaniards had traded much 
earlier than the French with all these Indian nations; 
with the Missouris, extending along the river of that 
name ; the Padoncas, beyond the River La Platte, and 
still farther to the north west, with the Latanes, and final- 



42 



\y with several others, as being within the dominions of 
the crown of Spain. 

The French themselves never disputed the rights of the 
Spaniards to possession and property, nor laid claim to 
these parts of the territories of the Spanish monarchy. 
The court of France always took the greatest care not to 
injure the rights of Spain, on all occasions of making 
grants of land within her settlement of Louisiana; and 
the French settlers at all times carefully respected the 
right bank of the Mississippi, throughout its whole ex- 
tent, as the well known property of Spain. No memorial 
can be found declaratory of a contrary opinion, except a 
decree of Louis the fourteenth, dated at Fontainbleau, on 
the 14th September, 1712, in favor of M. Crozat, ceding 
to him and the company formed by him, the French set- 
tlement of Louisiana, with an ideal and vague demarca- 
tion of boundaries, by extending them mentally to New 
Mexico, and the English province of Carolina, and along 
the Mississippi from the sea to the Illinois, &c. It is evi- 
dent, that the court of France did not then possess any 
knowledge of the geography of that country, or that New 
Mexico was considered as bordering on the Mississippi ; 
notwithstanding Louis the fourteenth had carried his li- 
berality so far in that grant as to give the French com- 
pany even the River Mississippi and the Missouri. He 
might with equal reason have given that of the Amazons, 
the La Plata, and Oronoko. You are perfectly aware, 
Sir, that the expressions of this grant are vague and ab- 
surd. They never could alter the fixed limits of French 
Louisiana, or of the Spanish possessions. The grant of 
LouLs the fourteenth was always considered as the act of 
a disordered imagination. The Spaniards constantly 
preserved their dominion over all the right bank of the 
Mississippi to the Missouri, and over all the territories 
and waters from the former to the right shore of the latter. 
Even the French themselves, notwithstanding this famous 



43 



grant, never ventured to go beyond the certain and well 
known limits of their settlement, or violate those of the 
territory and dominions of the crown of Spain. It is 
therefore, of no consequence to us, if such a blunder was 
committed by those who penned the said grant at Fontain- 
bleau. If a document of this nature was sufficient to dis- 
possess a nation of its dominions, or any part of them, 
what security could there be in any part of the possessions 
of independent kingdoms and states ? Can there be a mind 
capable of conceiving, that such a paper can fail to be 
absurd and completely despicable, since it never took 
effect, has always been resisted as rash and extravagant, 
and since the incontestable rights of Spain to the property 
and possession of the said territories, existed then and do 
still exist ? Certainly not. 

The court of France was immediately sensible of the 
extravagance of that grant, as no farther mention was made 
of it. — On the contrary, when it ceded Louisiana to Spain 
in 1764, M. Kerlet, who had been many years governor 
of that province, was ordered to draw up a memoir, con- 
taining a description of its proper extent and limits. This 
memoir, delivered by the Duke of Choiseuil, minister of 
France, to the Spanish ambassador at Paris, as a supple- 
ment to the act of cession of Louisiana, agrees substantial- 
ly with that which I have just now pointed out. I would 
carry this demonstration still farther, if I thought it ne- 
cessary ; and I will do so, if you shall have any thing to 
object to it. In the mean time, I now confine myself to 
declare to you, Sir, and to the government of the United 
States, in the name of the king, my master, that although 
Spain has an original and indisputable right to ail the 
right bank of the Mississippi, his majesty has resolved to 
claim this right, solely with a view to adhere to the uti 
possedetis, or stated possession, in which the crown of 
Spain was, when she acquired Louisiana in 1764, and in 
which that of France was at the time she made the cession. 



44 



His majesty paying due respect to all such treaties and 
conventions, as Lave caused a change in the state of pos- 
session of the two nations in that part of America, reli- 
giously confines himself to the express period when 
Louisiana was circumscribed by the well known extent 
and boundaries with which it passed into the hands of 
the United States. 

As these boundaries, to the westward of the Mississippi, 
although always notorious and acknowledged, have not 
been marked out with the formality necessary to avoid doubts 
and arbitrary pretensions, and as it is only evident, that 
they undoubtedly proceed from the Mexican Gulph, by 
the river Marmenta or Marmentao and Arroyo Hondo, by 
drawing a line between Natchitochez and Adaes, which 
crosses the Red River, and extends towards the Missouri^ 
I have done no more than point out the basis for a line of 
demarcation ; and after we have agreed on this basis, a 
commission composed of Spaniards and Americans, for- 
mally appointed and authorised by their respective go- 
vernments, can and ought alone to examine and fix the 
boundaries between the possessions of the two powers, 
keeping in view the documents exhibited on both sides, 
and comparing them on the spot with the points to which 
they refer. The basis I now speak of, as necessary for 
this demarcation of boundaries, must be sought for pre- 
cisely in the most marked, leading, and notorious points, 
which showed the proper direction and extent of the ter- 
ritories of Spain, France, and England, in 1763 and in 
1764, since we cannot seek for them in prcceeding peri- 
ods, the possessions of the three powers in this part of the 
American continent being then very different from what 
they have been after those periods, in virtue of public trea- 
ties, which are, and ought to be, inviolable. 

The situation, therefore, of the three powers, until 1763, 
was as follows : The crown of Spain extended its domini- 
ons to the east, over the right side of the Mississippi, 



45 



from its mouth to the mouth of the Missouri : and to the 
north, over the right side of the latter river, from its mouth 
to its source. Florida, already contracted by the intru- 
sive establishment of Louisiana, commenced at the river 
Perdido, and extending eastward, towards the river San- 
ta Maria, (St. Mary's) included the whole Peninsula, 
which extends as far as tho 23° of south latitude. Its 
northern boundary was not yet fixed. In addition to the 
colony of Louisiana, such as I have shown it was, and 
ought then to be, France possessed the territories of Up- 
per and Lower Canada, extending south to a line running 
from the river Alivamon, and following the chain of the 
Alleghanies until it struck above Chaleur Bay. England 
extended her possessions to the south of the said line, on 
the coast of the Atlantic, from the river St. Mary to the 
river St. Croix, and added to those possessions all the ter- 
ritory lying north of the two Canadas, as far as Hudson's 
Bay and lake Winnopeeg, which had been ceded to her 
by France, at the peace of 1713. 

But France, as you know, Sir, was, by the treaty of 
1763, excluded from the continent of North America, 
with the exception of Louisiana, then reduced to the Is- 
land of N. Orleans, and to the tract of country to the 
north of the Missouri, and extending to the British pos- 
sessions. By that treaty, she ceded to England both the 
Canadas, and all that part of Louisiana, extending over 
the left side of the Mississippi from its source to the Bay- 
ou Manchac, and thence following the left of the river 
Iberville, the lakes Maurepas andPontchartrain, the coast 
and islands to the river Perdido. Spain ceded, in like 
manner, Florida to England, such as I have described it; 
and in the year 1764, which is the second period when it 
is necessary to distinguish and fix the basis referred to, 
she acquired, by cession, from France, her remaining por- 
tion of old Louisiana. She afterwards acquired what 
France had ceded to the English, on the left of the Missis- 



46 



sippi, and Florida also, which she had ceded to them in 
J 763, as is proved by the treaty of 1783. This treaty, 
and those of 1763 and 1764, before mentioned, are those 
which it is necessary to keep in view, together with that 
of St. Ildephonso, by which Spain ceded back to France 
what she had received from her ; and France accepted 
the delivery, declaring herself satisfied, and taking pos- 
session by virtue of an act of his catholic majesty, which 
expresses the retrocession of Louisiana by Spain to France, 
such as she had received it from France in 1764. 

The treaties between France and the United States* 
and between the latter and Spain, the first in 1778, and 
the second in 1780, must likewise be kept in view, to illus- 
trate incontestable rights, and establish unalterable prin- 
ciples. To the treaties just mentioned, your government 
and his catholic majesty may add all such other titles and 
documents as may be thought necessary to remove or 
settle any doubt which may arise in the subject matter, 
to the end that the basis of a demarcation may be laid 
down upon a due understanding, and established and 
fixed with the greatest possible exactness. 

You are perfectly aware, Sir, that there can be no other 
just mode of settling the dispute in relation to the question 
of boundaries, and that it is the one which has always been 
adopted by all nations in similar cases ; it being the anxi- 
ous wish of his catholic Majesty that this demarcation 
may be so accomplished as to leave no room for doubts or 
controversy in future, by proceeding to it with good faith, 
and in a manner that may be satisfactory to both parties. 

I, therefore, conclude this note with the same opinion I 
expressed in my former one, namely, that it is indispensa- 
ble to examine, ascertain, and agree on the points neces- 
sary and essential to the establishment of the true boun- 
daries, which separate, or ought to separate, Louisiana 
from the Spanish dominions; and that this can only be 
determined by the mode proposed. If you will be pleas- 



47 



ed to point out to me any other, which, while it fulfils 
that object, may be conciliatory and compatible with the 
rights and honour of the crown of Spain, you may be as- 
sured, Sir, that I shall adopt it with pleasure, as I shall 
thereby further the intentions of my sovereign, which are 
to terminate as speedily as possible, the disputes now pen- 
ding, in an amicable manner, so as to leave no spark of 
disagreement in future. 

With these sentiments I have the honour to offer myself 
to your disposal, and pray God to preserve you many 
years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 

[translation.] 

The same to the same. 

Washington, 50th Jan. 1813. 

Sir, 

Having stated to you in my notes of 
the 29th of the last, and 5th of the present month, all that 
I thought proper and necessary on the subject of bounda- 
ries, that we may ascertain, discern, and fix with impar- 
tiality, justice, and good faith, those which divide or 
ought to divide Louisiana from the Spanish possessions, 
situate to the east and west of that province, acquired from 
France by the United States ; I now proceed to discuss 
the different points on which your government founds 
claims against those of his catholic Majesty. 

As this matter was sufficiently discussed (ventilado) and 
placed in the strongest light of evidence by the Spanish go- 
vernment, in the notes addressed by it to Mr. Pinkney at Ar- 
anjuez, and afterwards to the American commission compos- 
ed of that gentleman and Mr. Monroe: and also in those 
which in thelast instance were addressed by it to Mr. Erving, 
at Madrid ; I shall resume the subject briefly and precisely, 
merely touching on the principal points of the dispute, and 



48 



showing, with simplicit y and clearness, to what the state 
of the question is reduced, and in what manner it should 
be fairly and justly arranged. 

I divide into two classes the points on which your go- 
vernment demands satisfaction and indemnification of his 
catholic Majesty. The first comprehends the injuries, 
losses, and damages, suffered by American citizens from 
Spanish authorities and subjects, and those suffered by 
the subjects of the crown of Spain from American autho- 
rities and citizens. The second comprehends the losses, 
damages, and injuries, sustained by American citizens from 
captures made by French cruizers on the coast of Spain, 
and condemned by French consuls residing in Spanish 
ports. To this the whole question of indemnification is 
reduced. 

The points embraced by the first class, are as follows : 
1st. The damages and injuries unlawfully caused by 
Spanish authorities and subjects on American citizens; 
and by American authorities and citizens on the subjects 
of the crown of Spain ; in violation of the law of nations 
and of the existing treaty, during the war between Spain 
and Great Britain, which terminated at the peace of 1801. 
2dly. Damages and injuries sustained by American citi- 
zens, in consequence of the interruption of the place of 
deposite at New Orleans, by an order of the intendant of 
the royal treasury of Spain, in the province of Louisiana. 
3dly. Injuries, damages, and losses, caused to the citizens 
of the United States by Spanish authorities and subjects, 
and by American authorities and citizens to Spanish sub- 
jects, directly or indirectly, from the year 1801 until the 
period when the correspondent convention between the 
two governments on all the points embraced by the ques- 
tion of the spoliations shall be concluded and signed. 

Those which are comprehended in the first point are 
acknowledged to be evidently founded on justice ; and 
to carry them into effect, there exists ever since 1802 a 



49 



convention stipulated and signed between Spain and the 
United States. ¥ ou are aware, Sir, that the suspension of 
this convention did not originate with his catholic ma- 
jesty's government. His majesty is ready to give full 
effect to it ; and on the basis of that convention we can 
establish and agree on what may be most just, suitable, 
and expeditious, to make a reciprocal satisfaction for the 
aforesaid injuries and losses, comprehending in the con- 
vention, to be stipulated and signed for that purpose, all 
the injuries and losses, respectively suffered, since 1801 
to the present ; because these two points only are distinct 
in point of time, but, as you are perfectly aware, they 
are, in all other respects, of a like nature, and therefor J 
of equal rights and justice. 

The first and third points are consequently to be ac- 
knowledged as substantially forming only one, subject to 
the examination and decision of the joint commission, 
which is to determine the necessary compensation, in 
virtue of the convention to be stipulated on the basis of 
that of 1802. 

The second point, namely, that of the suspension of 
the deposite at New Orleans, might be omitted. You are 
aware, Sir, that it lasted but a very short time, and in the 
depth of winter, when the exportation of the produce of 
the western states was very inconsiderable, and very 
hazardous and difficult ; that, moreover, the order of the 
intendant produced no other inconvenience to the Ameri- 
can citizens than the trifling one of loading in the stream, 
instead of laying their boats along the quay at New 
Orleans; and that the said order of the intendant was an 
arbitrary act, duly disapproved of by his catholic ma- 
jesty, and for which he directed his minister to give 
suitable satisfaction to the United States, in his royal 
name. The United States having received it, this affair 
ought from that time be considered as terminated. 

On the other hand, you cannot but admit that his catho- 



50 



lie majesty was not bound to continue the deposite at 
New Orleans, alter the termination of the precise period 
stipulated by the treaty of 1795, by which his majesty 
only agreed to designate another spot for the said deposite 
upon the banks of the Mississippi. As this new spot was 
to be to the satisfaction of the United States, it was for 
them to point out and ask for it. The suspension, ordered 
by the intendant, although highly disapproved by the 
Spanish government, was in consequence of the scanda- 
lous contraband abuse by which, under cover of the 
deposite, enormous frauds were committed on the royal 
revenue. By the treaty no provision was made for this 
case, nor was there any stipulation relative to the time 
which was to intervene during the removal of the deposite 
from New Orleans to another spot on the bank of Mis- 
sissippi, or to the intermediate period between the sus- 
pension of the said deposite, and the assigning another 
situation for it. 

The government of Spain was, therefore, not bound to 
become answerable for the losses and injuries eventually 
sustained by the short interruption of the deposite, since 
such obligation could only grow out of the stipulation of 
that treaty, which does not contain a single word that has 
the most distant allusion to such an obligation or engage- 
ment on the part of his catholic majesty. 

Notwithstanding these reasons, and various others which 
I could adduce, to prove that the government of Spain 
cannot be bound to make satisfaction for the aforesaid 
losses and damages, his catholic majesty is disposed to 
yield to the reclamation of the United States on this point, 
provided they still insist on it, and to submit it, with the 
others before spoken of, to the investigation and decision 
of the joint commission. There will, therefore, be no 
difficulty, in also including this point, as far as it relates 
to injuries really caused by the order of the intendant of 
New Orleans, in the convention to be formed and signed, 



51 



if required by you ; it being his catholic majesty's desire 
to give continued proofs to the United States of his frank- 
ness, good faith, and condescension. I now proceed to the 
claim for losses and injuries committed on citizens of the 
United States by French cruizers and tribunals, in the 
capture of American vessels on the coast of Spain, and 
their condemnation in Spanish ports, forming the object 
of the second part of this question, or that embracing the 
points of the second class, in the order of the enumeration 
I have adopted. 

This part of the question was discussed in a very lumi- 
nous manner, in the notes addressed by his catholic 
majesty's government to the American ministers on the 
10th February and 5th March, 1805 ; and you are aware, 
that no reply was made on the part of the United States, 
weakening in the least the force of the principles and the 
truth of the facts on which the opposition of his catholic 
majesty to a responsibility for those damages and injuries 
was grounded. You will agree with me, Sir, that there 
is no possibility of deciding, by a general rule, the extent 
of the responsibility of a nation, on whose coasts and ports 
aggressions have been committed by another, against a 
third party, as it depends in a great degree on the circum- 
stances of the case, and the particular stipulations binding 
on nations. 

By the treaty between Spain and the United States, the 
obligation of Spain is reduced to exercise its good offices 
with the offending party, and to the claims of the party 
aggrieved. " Each party shall endeavour, (says the 
treaty,) by all means in their power, to protect and defend 
all vessels and other effects belonging to the citizens or 
subjects of the other, which shall be within the extent of 
their jurisdiction by sea or by land, and shall use all their 
efforts to recover and cause to be restored to the right 
owners, their vessels and effects, which may have been 
taken from them within the extent of their said jurisdic* 

D 



52 



tion, whether they are at war or not with the power whose 
subjects have taken possession of the said effects." 

On the part of Spain this has been done ; and if her 
efforts have not produced the desired effect, the fault does 
not rest with her. Besides, the injuries done by French 
privateers on the coasts and in the ports of Spain, to 
American citizens, have a particular character, which 
relieves the government of Spain from all obligation to 
indemnify them for those losses, even although such obli- 
gation had existed. The United States were not at war 
with France ; consequently their recourse, as the aggriev- 
ed party, was always open to the government and tribu- 
nals of the aggressor. Spain was then in alliance with 
France, and both were at war with Great Britain. She, 
therefore, could not prevent the privateers of her ally 
from entering her ports, as they were not fitted out against 
the Americans, but against the English. If these priva- 
teers, after going on their cruize, committed aggressions 
on American vessels, on pretence of considering them or 
their cargoes as English, the Spanish government could 
neither foresee nor prevent it. The injuries were already 
done before it was apprised of them. Neither was it in 
the Spanish ports, where the injury was completed, but 
in France, by the tribunals of cassation, to which the 
Americans appealed from the decision of the French 
consuls residing in the ports of Spain. It was unquestion- 
ably in France that the offence and injury originated, and 
in France were they consummated. How then can in- 
demnification be claimed of Spain for such injuries, and 
not of France who was the cause of them, and the power 
enabled to compel the aggressors to make due satisfaction 
as they were her subjects, and had given the requisite 
bonds in her courts for their good conduct in their cruizes ? 
You cannot but be sensible, Sir, that, according to every 
principle of reason and justice, it would evidently and 
unquestionably be monstrous to claim these indemnifi- 



53 



cations of Spain, as the power existed then, and still does 
exist, -which caused the injuries here treated of. 

I woald go still further, to show, that by no established 
principle of the law of nations can Spain be considered 
responsible for such indemnifications, not even indirectly, 
in case France should refuse to make them. I would 
cite, among others, the case in which Sir W. Scott, judge 
of the high court of admiralty of Great Britain, decided 
that prizes made by a belligerent, and carried into the 
ports of a power, its ally, and there condemned, are justly 
and lawfully condemned, according to the law of nations, 
and that the owners of the property prior to its condem- 
nation, have no longer a claim to it after condemnation has 
taken place. From this and other decisions, it follows, 
the government, to whose subjects the property condemned 
belonged, has no ground to bring forward complaints or 
claims against the government of the country where the 
prizes were made, because the condemnation is conform- 
able to the law of nations, the sentence pronouncing it is 
valid, and the authority condemning the property legal, 
and proceeded according to rule. This doctrine is well 
known and acknowledged in the United States, as also 
the principle, that when a nation has employed its good 
offices, and taken such means as are in its power, to p 
cure satisfaction for the offence, and obtain compensation 
for the injuries committed on its coasts, and in its ports, 
on a friendly or neutral nation, it is bound to nothing 
more, although its good offices and endeavours may not 
have produced the desired effect. This principle was 
applied by Mr. Jefferson, in his letter of the 5th Septem- 
ber, 1793, to Mr. George Hammond. It is also admitted 
by the best civilians, and agrees perfectly with the obli- 
gations of Spain towards the United States, resulting from 
the existing treaty between the two nations. I mean, 
however, in case Spain had not been the ally of France at 
that period, because, even in that case, the principle I 

d 2 



54 



have just indicated would govern ; but being then the 
ally of France in the war against Great Britain, she 
might certainly employ, among the exceptions exempting 
her from all responsibility in the case here treated of, the 
principle which served as the ground of Sir W. Scott's 
decision in the British admiralty court; but I do not con- 
sider it necessary further to illustrate these legal objec- 
tions of the government of Spain against the claim of your 
government for the aforesaid injuries, in as much as this 
capital exception attends it, namely, that satisfaction for 
those injuries was already made to the United States by 
France, and consequently this affair is, and ought to be, 
considered as settled and terminated. This essential ex- 
ception makes it superfluous to produce others, since the 
obligation spoken of, which was and could only be but 
one, is thereby evinced to have been extinguished. The 
French government has positively declared, that " in the 
special convention concluded between France and the 
United States, this point was settled ; and that the said 
convention, by which this claim and demand of the United 
States, for due compensation for the losses and damages 
now spoken of, were attended to and redeemed, was rati- 
fied in 1802, together with the treaty of cession or sale 
of Louisiana." That is to say, that the amount of the said 
injuries and losses was then estimated and compensated in 
the price stipulated for Louisiana ; so that full compen- 
sation was then made to the United States for all that was 
estimated and agreed on between the French, and American 
governments, as forming the value of the said losses and 
injuries. The French ambassador at Madrid gave a 
verbal assurance to this effect to his catholic majesty's 
minister of state, and the minister of foreign affairs of 
France gave a similar assurance to the Spanish ambassador 
at Paris. His catholic majesty also demanded a formal 
and categorical answer of the French government on this 
point, which formal declaration I here copy; it is thus 



55 



expressed in the note transmitted by the minister of France 
to the ambassador of his catholic majesty. 

" Bourbon L'Archambault, 8th Thermidor, 12th year, 
(27th July, 1804.) Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, I have duly 
laid before his imperial majesty the note which yon did 
me the honor to address to me, dated the 24th July, re- 
lative to the discussion which has taken place between the 
court of Spain and the government of the United States ; I 
shall not fail immediately to submit to him the more am- 
ple explanations which your excellency announces your 
intentions of making to me, both verbally and in writing, 
on this dispute, which seems to threaten the good under- 
standing existing between the United States and your 
court. Although I might yet defer giving my opinion to 
your excellency, in consequence of your intention to fur- 
nish me with the explanatory statements which you an- 
nounce, I do not hesitate to inform you by anticipation, 
that his imperial majesty cannot but be extremely sensible 
to the uncertain and uneasy position in which two powers, 
in amity with France, are placed by this misunderstand- 
ing, and that he will certainly do whatever may depend 
on him to prevent its coming to an unfortunate issue. 

* 6 It is several months since I was informed by the charge 
d'affaires near the federal government, of the pretensions 
of that government, relative to a portion of country bor- 
dering on Florida, which has become a great object of 
ambition to the Americans, in relation to the establish- 
ment of their revenue system ; and it seemed to me, from 
this information, that it was important that the federal 
government should use all the means in its power, to ob- 
tain the annexation of this frontier portion of Florida to 
Louisiana; but the opinion due to the justice and mode- 
ration which distinguish the personal character of the Pre- 
sident of the United States, has not, nor does it yet, per- 
mit me to think, that menaces, provocation, and ground- 
less hostility, may be considered by him as the most suitable 



56 



means to enable the United States to acquire a portion of 
territory belonging to a foreign power, which suits their 
convenience. 

Ci Respecting the second point in dispute, which your 
excellency does me the honor to speak of in your note, I 
must say that I had previously no knowledge of it. And, 
indeed, if I had been informed that his catholic majesty's 
ministers had carried their condescension for the govern- 
ment of the United States so far as to engage themselves 
towards it for indemnifying violations pretended to have 
been committed by France, I should certainly have re- 
ceived orders from my government, to express the dissa- 
tisfaction which France must feel on the occasion of so 
unseemly a deference; and this dissatisfaction would have 
been expressed still more warmly to the government of the 
United States than to that of Spain. There is every rea- 
son to suppose that the court of Spain, by thus yielding 
to an improper demand, has emboldened the American 
government, and determined it to become pressing, and 
even menacing on this occasion. As for the rest, the ex- 
planations formerly given to your court on this point, as 
well as those which have been authorized to be given to 
the government of the United States, by the charge d'af- 
faires of his imperial majesty, must enable you to judge 
of the opinion formed by his majesty on this question, 
which, having already been the subject of a long negoci- 
ation and of a formal convention between France and the 
United States, cannot again become a subject of discussion." 

" Such, Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, are the remarks that 
I have thought proper to make in the first instance, in 
answer to the preliminary note of your excellency. In 
addition, 1 must observe, that, in my opinion, the de- 
monstrations which appear to me to have given your go- 
vernment the uneasiness it has charged you to express, 
are somewhat exaggerated, either from the impression 
they have produced at Madrid, or from the construction, 



57 



possibly too extensive, which the minister of the United 
States to his catholic majesty may have, perhaps, given 
to his instructions. There is no room to suppose that a 
government, anxious as that of the United States is, to es- 
tablish a general opinion of its wisdom and moderation, 
would resolve on engaging in an unjust war through mo- 
tives of ambition; but as the United States attach great 
importance to the acquisition of a part of Florida suited 
to their convenience, it is not to be doubted that they will 
make every effort to obtain it. The ground of this dis- 
pute, therefore, rests entirely on this point. Perhaps the 
federal government may have thought that it would tend 
to promote a negociation for exchange, by exciting a di- 
plomatic quarrel. The wisdom of his catholic majesty 
will certainly suggest to him what is proper to be done on 
this occasion, with a view to terminate a dispute, which, 
I have no doubt, will incessantly be revived, so long as no 
change will take place in the actual relative position of 
Louisiana and the Floridas; but, on this point, it is for 
the wisdom of his catholic majesty to decide. The United 
States are not founded in making any claim on his majesty. 
A positive declaration was made to them, that Louisiana 
was delivered to them, such and with the same extent it 
had when acquired by France, and this declaration will 
again be made to them as often and as positively as his 
catholic majesty will desire it. 

" I request your excellency to receive the assurances of 
my highest consideration. Cha. Mau. Talleyrand. To 
Admiral Gravina, ambassador of his catholic majesty." 

You see, Sir, that this declaration of the French go- 
vernment is conclusive, and that the responsibility for los- 
ses and injuries caused by French cruizers and tribunals 
on the coasts and in the ports of Spain, is removed from 
the period of that agreement ; and that to renew a claim 
for what has been already paid and satisfied, would be 
exacting double reparation for one and the same injury, 



58 



and double payment for one and the same debt. Notwith- 
standing, if the United States have still a claim for the 
complete fulfilment of this satisfaction and payment, his 
catholic Majesty is ready to unite his good offices and 
earnest requests to this claim of your government on that 
of France, in order that she may perform, and cause to be 
performed, whatever may be justly required in behalf of 
American citizens who have sustained losses and injuries 
by her cruizers and tribunals. To this the obligation of 
Spain, in the present case, is reduced ; and his catholic 
Majesty's government offers immediately to sustain all the 
just pretensions which the government of the United States 
may be desirous to form against the government of France 
on this point, or to demand of it all such explanations as 
may be judged necessary to clear up all doubts, if any are 
yet entertained by the United States, on this matter. 

This point Ihen being separated from those connected 
with the question of claims for injuries, losses, and dama- 
ges, because that is either already settled between France 
and the U. States, oris to be settled with France directly, 
if any thing still remains to be performed, we can agree 
upon a just and suitable mode of determining a reciprocal 
satisfaction for the injuries, losses, and damages, before 
spoken of, and included in the three points of the first 
class, as enumerated in this note, in order that we may 
proceed more clearly and methodically. These three 
points, as I have before said, will be submitted to the 
judgment and decision of the joint commission, in virtue 
of the convention to be formed on the basis of that of 1802, 
simplifying and rectifying it in such manner as will insure 
its most expeditious and faithful execution. 

In this note, and the two others which I have already 
had the honour to address to you, are contained all the 
points in dispute between the government of his catholic 
Majesty and that of the United States ; and to avoid con- 
founding them with each other, I have treated them in 



59 



their regular order with precision, simplicity, and clear- 
ness. You can examine each of them, Sir, with the im- 
partiality and rectitude which distinguish your charac- 
ter ; and I flatter myself that all the motives and grounds 
of the controversy will be completely removed by your 
discernment and wisdom, as you will not fail to acknow- 
ledge the irresistible force of what has been, and is now 
demonstrated on the part of the government of Spain. 

When the different points treated of in each of these 
notes, with the necessary discrimination, are considered, 
and a decision formed on each of them, it is requisite we 
should definitively settle and terminate the controversy, 
without leaving any room for dispute in future. 

This general and definitive arrangement of all the points 
in dispute, must, by its nature and circumstances, precede 
the negociation, for the exchange or cession of the Flori- 
das ; since, until it be determined and settled what are the 
territories on the frontier which belong to Spain, and what 
are those which belong to the United States, it is impos- 
sible to estimate the equivalent to be given to Spain for 
the two Floridas. Nevertheless, as it is the earnest desire 
of his catholic Majesty to meet the wishes of the United 
States in every thing that may be compatible with the 
rights and honour of his royal crown, you may, Sir, de- 
vise and propose a mode by which we may at one and the 
same time adjust all the points of the controversy, and sti- 
pulate the exchange or cession of the Floridas, in case 
your government should not agree to our previous settling 
the points connected with the question of boundaries, and 
establishing a convention, in conformity to the basis of 
that of 1802, for the mutual compensation of losses and 
injuries, according to the order I have adopted in my 
note. 

I expect, therefore, your answer, Sir, whether it be con- 
fined distinctly to the subject of each one of my notes, ac- 
cording to their respective order, or to propose a mode 



00 



embracing all the points comprehended in them, by which 
we may have them collectively settled in the negotiation 
which is to be entered upon for the exchange or cession of 
the Floridas. In this proceeding you will perceive, Sir, 
a certain proof of the frankness and good faith of the Spa- 
nish government, and of the sincere and friendly senti- 
ments entertained by the king, my master, for the United 
States. 

I conclude, with the renewed assurance of my respects, 
and I pray God to preserve you many years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 



[translation.] 
The same to the same. 

Washington, Qth Jan. 1818. 

Sin, 

In the National Intelligencer of the 6th 
of this month, I have seen published the official notice of 
the occupation of Amelia Island by the troops of the 
United States. I had already anticipated this unpleasant 
event, by the note which I had the honor to address you 
on the 6th of last month, in which I remonstrated, in the 
name of his Catholic Majesty, against the measures an- 
nounced in that part of the President's message to both 
Houses of Congress, which manifested an intention to in- 
vade, and forcibly seize on places and territories belong- 
ing to the crown of Spain. Having received no answer 
to that note, I now feel myself obliged to repeat its con- 
tents to you, and to protest, as I now do strongly protest, 
in the name of the king, my master, against the occupa- 
tion of Amelia Island, effected by the naval and military 
forces of this republic, destined to operate against that 
Island, forming a part of East Florida, one of the posses- 
sions of the Spanish monarchy, on this continent. 



61 



Whatever may have been the motives on which the go- 
vernment of the United States have founded their adop- 
tion of this measure, it cannot but be considered by all 
nations, as a violent invasion of the dominions of Spain, 
at the time of a profound peace, when his Catholic Majes- 
ty omits nothing to give the most generous proofs of his 
perfect friendship and high consideration for the United 
States. 

I therefore trust, that upon your communicating this 
solemn reclamation and protest to the President, he will 
be pleased to direct that suitable orders be given to the 
American commanders at Amelia Island, and on that sta- 
tion, forthwith to restore the said Island, together with all 
its dependencies, to his Catholic Majesty, .and to deliver 
up the same to the Spanish commandant and officers pre- 
senting themselves for that purpose, in the name of their 
sovereign. 

It is also my duty to represent to you, Sir, that at the 
time of the invasion and occupation of that Island by the 
American troops, there was, and I believe still is, a con- 
siderable property belonging to Spanish subjects, which, 
in all cases, it is required by strict justice, should be de- 
livered to the owner, which, 1 doubt not, has already been, 
or will be done, in a due and proper manner, care being 
taken, in the mean time, that it be not removed, or suffer 
injury. 

I await your reply to this reclamation and protest, that 
I may be enabled to give seasonable intelligence and in- 
structions to the governor of St. Augustine, and to the 
captain-general of the Island of Cuba, provided the Pre- 
sident, as I flatter myself, will resolve on the prompt res- 
titution and delivery of Amelia and its dependencies to 
his Catholic Majesty's government. 

I cannot by any means doubt that this will be effected, 
confiding, as I do, in the high rectitude of the President, 



62 

and in the inviolable principles of public faith, on which 
the security of nations reposes. 

I have the honor to renew the assurances of my respect, 
and pray God to preserve you many years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 



The Secretary of State to Don Luis de Onis. 

Department of State, 
Washington, 16th Jan. 1818. 

Sir, 

Your letters of 29th December, and of 
5th and Sth of the present month, have been received, and 
laid before the President of the United States. 

He has seen, not without surprize and regret, that they 
consist almost entirely of renewed discussions upon the 
several points of difference which have so long subsisted 
between the United States and Spain ; discussions which 
had been exhausted in the correspondence between the mi- 
nister plenipotentiary of the United States at Madrid, and 
your government, in the years 1802 and 1803, and more 
especially in that between Don Pedro Cevallos and the 
special extraordinary mission of the United States to your 
court in 1805; a mission, instituted by the American 
government, under the influence of the most earnest desire 
to terminate amicably, and to the satisfaction of both the 
parties, all those differences ; but which, after five months 
negociation at Aranjuez, issued in the refusal of Spain to 
give satisfaction to the United States, upon any one of the 
causes of complaint which were to be adjusted, or even 
to settle the question of boundaries existing between the 
United States and the Spanish provinces bordering upon 
them. The President considers that it would be an unpro- 
fitable waste of time, to enter again at large on topics of 



63 



controversy, which were at that time so thoroughly de- 
bated, and upon which he perceives nothing in your 
notes which was not then substantially urged by Don 
Pedro Cevallos, and to which every reply essential to elu- 
cidate the rights and establish the pretensions on the part 
of the United States, was then given. For proof of which, 
I beg leave merely to refer you to the letters of Mr. Mon- 
roe and Mr. Pinckney, to Mr. Cevallos, of 28th Janua- 
ry, 26th February, 8th and 16th March, 9th and 20th 
April, and 12th May, 1805. I am instructed by the Pre- 
sident to propose to you an adjustment of all the differ- 
ences between the two countries, by an arrangement on 
the following terms. 

1 . Spain to cede all her claims to territory eastward of 
the Mississippi. 

2. The Colorado, from its mouth to its source, and 
from thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, to be the 
western boundary ; or to leave that boundary unsettled 
for future arrangement. 

3. The claims of indemnities for spoliation, whether 
Spanish or French, within Spanish jurisdiction, and for 
the suppression of the deposite of New Orleans, to be 
arbitrated and settled by commissioners, in the manner 
agreed upon in the unratified convention of 1 802. 

4. The lands in East Florida, and to the Perdido, to be 
made answerable for the amount of the indemnities which 
may be awarded by the commissioners, under this arbi- 
tration ; with an option to the United States, to take the 
lands and pay the debts, or to sell the land for the pay- 
ments of the debts, distributing the amounts received, 
equally, according to the amount of their respective li- 
quidated claims among the claimants. No grants of land, 
subsequent to the 11th of August, 1802, to be valid. 

5. Spain to be exonerated from the payment of the 
debts, or any part of them. 

These proposals do not materially differ from those 



made to Don Pedro Cevallos, on the 12th of May, 1805. 
The President has seen nothing in any events which have 
since occurred, nor in the contents of your notes, which 
can afford a reason or a motive for departing from them. 
Of the motives for coming to an immediate arrangement, 
the urgency cannot escape your attention. The events 
which have recently occurred in a part of the territory, 
which you have informed me that the King of Spain is 
willing to cede to the United States, those which are no- 
toriously impending over the remaining part of the terri- 
tory yet in the possession of Spain, make it indispensably 
necessary that the ultimate determination of your govern- 
ment in this negotiation should be acted on without de- 
lay. The explanations requested by your notes of the 
6th December, and 8th January, of the motives of this 
government in the occupation of the Amelia island, have 
been given in the message of the President to the congress 
of the 13th instant, and cannot fail of being satisfactory 
to your government. You see it there distinctly and ex- 
plicitly declared, that the measures which this govern- 
ment found itself under the necessity of adopting in re- 
lation to that island, were taken not with a view to con- 
quest from Spain. You well know, that if Spain could 
have kept, or recovered the possession of it from the 
trifling force by which it was occupied, the American go- 
vernment would have been spared the necessity of the 
measure which was taken, and which was dictated by the 
duty of protecting the interests, as well of this country as 
of those with whom we are in friendly commercial rela- 
tions, including Spain herself. But Spain cannot expect 
that the United States should employ their forces for the 
defence of her territories, or to rescue them for her exclu- 
sive advantage from the adventurers who are projecting, 
and in the act of executing, expeditions against them, 
from territories without the jurisdiction of the United 
States. Neither can the United States permit that the 



65 



adjoining territories of Spain should be misused by others, 
for purposes of annoyance to them. 

Under these circumstances, the President is persuaded 
that you will perceive the necessity, either of accepting 
the proposals herein contained, as the basis of an adjust- 
ment of the long standing differences between the United 
States and Spain, or of offering such as can, by any pos- 
sibility, be acceptable to this government, without re- 
verting to a course of proceeding, the only result of 
which must be further procrastination. 

I pray you, Sir, to accept the assurance of my very 
distinguished consideration. 

JOHN Q. ADAMS. 



[translation.] 

The Chevalier Don Luis de Onis to the Secretary 
of State. 

Washington, 24th Jan. 1818. 

Sir, 

I have received your letter of the 16th of this month, 
by which I see, with great regret, that in acknowledging 
the receipt of those I had the honour to address you on 
the 29th of last month, and the 5th and 8th of the pre- 
sent, you omit to answer them, and decline taking into 
consideration the indisputable facts and grounds, and the 
irresistible arguments advanced in them, in relation to 
each of the points embraced by the dispute set on foot 
by the government of the United States. You say, it is 
useless again to discuss the facts, reasons, and arguments, 
produced by the Spanish government, in the years 1802 
and 1803, and 1805 ; the American plenipotentiary and 
the special extraordinary mission, conjointly with him, 
having then replied to the different points of the notes of 
the Spanish ministry, in a manner capable of elucidating 



66 



the respective rights of each of the two powers, and es- 
tablishing the pretensions of the government of the United 
States ; for proof of which you refer me to the letters of 
Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney to his catholic Majesty's 
minister, Don Pedro Cevallos, of the 28th January, 26th 
February, 8th and 16th March, 9th and 20th April, and 
12th May, 1S05. 

I think it proper to observe, in the first place, that al- 
though the facts, grounds, and arguments, then produced 
by the Spanish government, do not differ essentially from 
those stated in my aforesaid notes, iheir irresistible and 
conclusive force is neither altered nor in any manner im- 
paired. Truth is ef all times ; and reason and justice are 
founded on immutable principles. It is on these princi- 
ples that the rights of the crown of Spain are founded to 
the territories eastward and westward of Louisiana, 
claimed by your government as making part of that pro- 
vince; rights of immemorial property and possession, 
never disputed, but always notorious, and acknowledged 
by other nations. 

In the second place, I must remark to you, that, 
throughout the whole correspondence on this subject, be- 
tween the ministry of the United States, and that of his 
Catholic Majesty, there is not a single fact, or a single ar- 
gument, that can affect the certainty, or decisive force of 
the facts, grounds, and reasons, which support and de- 
termine the aforesaid rights of the crown of Spain. There 
does not appear to be a single incident to give the smallest 
support to the pretensions of your government. All the 
vague positions on which it has been attempted to found 
them, have been refuted and dissipated by the Spanish 
government, by a demonstration so luminous and con- 
vincing, as to leave no alternative to reason to resist it. 

To lay all this aside, and merely to say, " that it is a 
matter already thoroughly debated, on which nothing 
further essential can be urged, and that the American go- 



67 



vernment insists on maintaining a contrary opinion," is to 
adopt an arbitrary course, because this opinion, not being 
supported by any solid foundation, and being, as it is, 
diametrically opposite to the unquestionable result of 
facts, and to the most incontestable principles and argu- 
ments, does not, nor can it give to the United States any 
right to the pretensions they have formed. Neither can 
it be required, that the government of Spain should sub- 
scribe to this opinion, and renounce its rights to the terri- 
tory which the United States wish to possess in the 
Spanish provinces bordering on those states ; since that 
opinion, as I have already said, is altogether groundless 
and arbitrary, and since, on these rights, there neither 
does, nor can there, fall any doubt. 

It is the sincere wish of his Catholic Majesty, that a 
just mode of amicably settling all pending differences may 
be adopted, and he has authorized me, for this purpose ; 
but neither the powers he has conferred on me, nor my 
own sense of duty, permit me to enter into an arrange- 
ment which is not based upon principles of common jus- 
tice, combined in good faith with the suitable considera- 
tions of reciprocal utility or convenience. Being anxi- 
ously desirous of carrying the wishes and frank disposi- 
tions of my sovereign into execution, I suggested to 
you, in our last verbal conference, the expediency of 
your making to me such proposals as you might think fit, 
to reconcile the rights and interests of both powers, by a 
definite arrangement of the differences pending between 
them. Since you communicated the present state of 
things to the President, you have proposed to me in your 
note a plan of arrangement or adjustment, embracing the 
question of boundaries, and that of indemnities, which 
is as follows : 

To settle the former, you propose, " that Spain shall 
cede all her claims to territory eastward of the Mississippi, 
(that is to say, the two Floridas ;) and that the Colorado, 

£ 



68 



from its mouth to its source, and from thence to the 
northern limits of Louisiana, shall be the western boun- 
dary of that province." 

I have expressed in one proposal what you have stated 
in two, as both are reduced to the cession of territory by 
Spain. It is not only pretended that Spain shall cede 
both Florida's to the United States, but that she shall 
likewise cede to them the vast extent of Spanish territory 
comprehended within the line following the whole course 
of the Colorado. I presume that it is the river Colorado 
of Natchitochez you speak of, and not of another bearing 
the same name, and which is still farther within the limits 
of the Spanish provinces. I leave it to you, Sir, to ex- 
amine the import of these two proposals, and to see whe- 
ther they are compatible with the principles of justice, 
or with those of reciprocal utility or convenience. It is 
demanded of Spain to cede provinces and territories of 
the highest importance, not only to the eastward, but the 
westward of Louisiana, and that without proposing any 
equivalent or remuneration. 

To settle the question of indemnities, you make the fol- 
lowing proposals : 

1. That indemnity for spoliation on American citizens, 
committed by Spaniards or by French within the juris- 
diction of Spain, as well as for injuries sustained by 
American citizens by the interruption of the deposite at 
New Orleans, shall be settled by a joint commission, as 
agreed upon in the convention of 1802. 

2. The lands in East Florida and in West Florida, to 
the Perdido, to be made answerable to the United States 
for the amount of the indemnities which may appear to be 
due by Spain to American citizens, on the settlement to 
be made by commissioners appointed according to the 
convention of 1802; it being at the option of the United 
States to take the lands and pay the amount of the in- 
demnities according to the award on the claims, or to sell 



69 



the lands and effect the payment with the proceeds of the 
sales. To this proposal you add, that all grants of land 
subsequent to the 1 1th of August, 1802, are to be null 
and void. 

3. That Spain shall be exonerated from the payment of 
the debts, or any part of them. 

Before I reply to these three proposals, I must repeat 
the uniform declaration of the Spanish government to the 
United States, that his catholic majesty is, and always 
has been, ready to settle the question of indemnities, with 
a view to the full satisfaction of the just claims of the par- 
ties interested ; and that his majesty has always manifest- 
ed the same sincere desire to settle definitively the ques- 
tion of boundaries to the satisfaction of bolh powers ; and 
that, if neither of these objects has been accomplished, it 
has not depended on the government of Spain. The con- 
trary is evident, beyond the possibility of denial, from the 
official correspondence between his catholic majesty's 
minister of state, and the plenipotentiaries of the American 
government, who suspended and broke off the negotiation 
at Aranjuez, after having obstinalely refused to accept 
the modifications founded on strict justice, which were 
proposed by the Spanish government. 

i now proceed to state the most obvious and essential 
difficulties which render your three proposals for the set- 
tlement of indemnities inadmissible. I observe that, in 
speaking of them, you only mention the indemnities for 
spoliations suffered by American citizens, and omit that 
which is equally due to Spaniards for spoliations com- 
mitted on them by the citizens and authorities of this re- 
public, in violation of the law of nations and the existing 
treaty. I also observe that you not only omit this indis- 
pensable basis of reciprocity and common justice, but 
propose the immediate cession of both the Floridas, which 
two Spanish provinces are to be retained by the United 
States, as an indemnify or payment of what may appear 



70 



to be due by Spain to American citizens, according to the 
arbitration of the joint commission. 

You cannot fail to admit, Sir, that this proposal, in- 
dependent of its injustice, is offensive to the dignity and 
honor of his catholic majesty. Jtis unjust, because it de- 
mands an indemnity or anticipated payment of claims yet 
to be proved and liquidated, while, at the same time, it 
provides for no correspondent indemnity or payment of 
what may be due by the United States to Spanish sub- 
jects. It is offensive to the dignity and honor of Spain, 
because, by the very fact of demanding this anticipation, 
a want of confidence in the integrity and punctuality of 
his catholic majesty's government is manifested, whereas 
a single instance does not exist of Spain having failed in 
fulfilling her engagements, the most scrupulous exactness, 
good faith and strict observance of the point of honor hav- 
ing at all times invariably formed the distinguishing traits 
of her character. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary to 
point out to you the enormous disproportion between the 
value of the two Floridas, and that of the probable amount 
of the claims of American citizens on the government of 
Spain, after they are ascertained and liquidated. This 
disproportion will be still more enormous, when you con- 
sider, that, in the first of the three proposals, to which I 
am now replying, is included the indemnity for spolia- 
tions on citizens of this republic by French cruizers and 
consuls on the coast and in the ports of Spain, and by the 
tribunals of cassation in France, confirming the condemna- 
tion of American prizes. 

It has been proved to mathematical demonstration, that 
Spain neither is nor can be responsible in any way for this 
indemnity. It is France which must be responsible, if 
she has not already satisfied the claim, as her government 
assures she has done. 

Nor can I omit to declare to you, Sir, that the preten- 
sion of annulling the grants of land in Florida, since 



71 



August, 1802, -would be in opposition to all the principles 
of justice. These grants are made in a lawful manner and 
by a lawful authority. Spain was the owner and peace- 
ful possessor of those lands. She had then an indisputa- 
ble right to make the grants you allude to, as she now has 
to the property of the territory afterwards forcibly taken 
possession of by the United States, since a violent dispos- 
session never deprives an individual or nation of their 
lawful rights. I proceed to your last proposal, which is, 
that, on the admission of those proceedings, Spain shall 
be exonerated from all obligation to pay the debts or 
claims which may be due to American citizens, on their 
settlement and liquidation by the joint commission. I 
conceive this to be the import of the expressions, stating 
that " Spain shall be exonerated from the payment of the 
debts or any part of them." This proposition is a co- 
rollary of the two preceding it, since, if Spain should cede 
the two Floridas to the United States as an indemnity or 
compensation for the losses and injuries done to the citi- 
zens of this republic, she would necessarily be exonerated 
from this responsibility, the cession being, in such case, 
equivalent to a final discharge of the claims referred to. 
I go farther. Supposing your two last proposals for the 
definitive adjustment of the question of indemnities to be 
admitted and carried into effect, the one preceding, name- 
ly, that which refers this business to the award of com- 
missioners, to be appointed by both governments agree- 
ably to the convention of 1802, would be useless and con- 
tradictory. As none of the proposals offered by you 
provide an indemnity for the losses and injuries caused to 
Spaniards, nor even makes any mention of them, and by 
the two last proposals, if admitted, the losses and injuries 
sustained by American citizens would be indemnified and 
compensated, according to the wishes of your government, 
and Spain would, consequently, be exonerated from all 
responsibility on this head, it is clear, that the business 



72 



would then be settled and cancelled, and there would be 
no necessity for recurring to arbitration. 

Finally, I cannot refrain from expressing ray great con- 
cern, at nol being able in any degree to reconcile the pro- 
posals you have made me by order of the President, with 
the inviolable principles of common justice; and on per- 
ceiving, that, on the part of the United States, no basis is 
presented of a due reciprocity, for the adjustment of the 
differences pending, the said proposals being altogether 
inadmissible. 

I repeat to you, Sir, that the king, my master, being 
desirous to meet the wishes of the United States in respect 
to the cession of the Floridas, although it is well known, 
how highly important those two provinces are to cover 
and secure the possessions of Spain in that part of Ame- 
rica, his majesty is ready to cede them, provided he be 
compensated by an equivalent in territory belonging to the 
United States, and bordering on the Spanish possessions, 
and it is under this idea, that the powers and instructions 
I have from my government are conceived. But you can- 
not fail to admit, that the plan of adjustment proposed, 
involves exorbitant and enormous sacrifices to the preju- 
dice of Spain, since, without offering any equivalent or 
compensation on the part of the United States, it requires 
not only the cession of both the Floridas, but also that of 
immense territories belonging to the Spanish monarchy 
westward of Louisiana; and, that in relation to the ques- 
tion of reciprocal indemnities, it only comprehends those 
of American citizens, omitting those due to the crown and 
subjects of his catholic majesty. This plan of adjustment 
would amount to the following one : " Give me all I 
wish to ask, and give up all you may justly claim or show 
is yours.'' I am, however, perfectly persuaded, that this 
neither is nor can be your intention, or that of your go- 
vernment; and that, in making these proposals for an ad- 
justment, your only object was to afford me an opportu- 



73 



nity, to make such as you might consider just and admis- 
sible. 

I shall, therefore, put out to you such as I conceive to 
be founded in justice and reciprocal convenience, and 
therefore cannot fail to meet the wishes of the United States. 

1. u The dividing line between Louisiana and the Spa- 
nish possessions to be established in one of the branches of 
the Mississippi, either that of La Fourche, or of the Acha- 
falaya, following the course of the river to its source. 
Spain to cede the two Floridas to the United States in full 
and complete sovereignty." 

In case this proposal should not appear admissible to 
your government, the following may be substituted : " The 
uti possidetis, or state of possession in 1763, to form the 
basis, and the western line of division to be established 
from the sea, at a point between the rivers Carcasu and 
the Marmonias or Marmontoa, running thence by Arroyo 
Hondo, till it crosses the Colorado of Natchitochez, be- 
tween that post and Adaes, thence northward to a point to 
be fixed and laid down by commissioners respectively ap- 
pointed for the purpose." 

2. His catholic majesty to ratify the convention of 1 802, 
and both governments to abide by the decision of the 
joint commission on the question of indemnities, classing 
as such those which regard American citizens and the 
crown and subjects of his catholic majesty, for spoliations 
reciprocally committed to the period of the said conven- 
tion, and thereafter to the date of the confirmation of the 
adjustment by the joint commission. Five or seven mem- 
bers to compose the commission, with this condition, that 
if there are five, each government shall respectively nomi- 
nate a person for the fifth member, to be chosen by lot, 
provided they cannot agree on the person to be so chosen ; 
the same to take place for the fifth, sixth, and seventh, if 
there be seven members ; but the fifth, in the first instance, 
and the fifth, sixth, and seventh, in the second, shall nei- 



74 



ther be Spaniards nor citizens of the United States by birth 
or naturalization. They shall, moreover, be, by their pro- 
fession and office, judges, of the number those subjects, 
who, among maritime aad commercial nations, are usually 
employed to judge and decide on matters connected with 
maritime law and the law of nations, whether in France, 
England, Russia, Austria, or the Netherlands. In both 
cases, the person so designated, to be provided with a 
certificate of the government of the country he belongs to, 
proving the opinion entertained of his integrity and capa- 
city, his quality and actual profession as a judge in the 
matters referred to, and also the assurance, that permission 
shall be granted to him for discharging the duties of the 
commission, in case the said person shall be chosen by lot. 

With these modifications, suggested by prudence, im- 
partiality, and the most perfect rectitude, and excluding, 
as is just, the indemnity for the spoliations committed on 
the commerce of this republic, by French privateers and 
consuls on the coasts and in the ports of Spain, and by the 
tribunals of cassation in France, the convention of 1802 to 
be ratified and carried into execution. 

3. His Catholic majesty to unite with the United States in 
using their best endeavors to obtain from France the cor- 
respondent indemnity for the spoliations just mentioned, 
in case that question has not already been settled between 
the French and American governments. 

4. The government of the United States to engage to 
take effectual measures to prevent all hostile armaments 
in their ports and territory against the commerce and pos- 
sessions of Spain, either by Americans or any other power, 
or by adventurers of other nations, or by the rebels of Spa- 
nish America ; and for their due execution, the President 
to issue positive orders to all persons employed by the go- 
vernment; charging them, on their responsibility, to guard 
against any infraction or violation of them whatsoever, ex- 
tending the same measures to the preventing of any vessels 



75 



employed in cruizing against the Spanish commerce or 
otherwise hostilely engaged against the government and 
subjects of his catholic majesty, from arming in, or enter- 
ing armed, the harbours and waters of the United States. 
Eyery vessel of this description, found within the juris- 
diction of the United States, to be seized without remis- 
sion, and subjected to the rigour of the law by the Ameri- 
can officers and authorities ; and the vessels and property 
so captured, belonging to the subjects of the crown of 
Spain, to be laid under attachment, and definitely deli- 
vered up to his Majesty's minister, or the nearest Spanish 
consul, to be held by them at the disposal of the lawful 
owners. This proposal contains nothing beyond the obli- 
gations already imposed by the laws of the United States, 
the law of nations, and the existing treaty. But, as it is 
evident to you, and to the whole world, that abuses and 
infractions of these laws and solemn compacts have been, 
and continue to be, frequently practised, it is absolutely 
necessary that suitable measures be adopted, fully and ef- 
fectually to prevent the repetition of similar abuses and 
infractions. 

By these four proposals, the rights and interests of both 
powers are reconciled, upon principles of manifest justice 
and reciprocal utility ; they settle and terminate all pend- 
ing differences, in my judgment, satisfactory to both 
nations ; and I must presume that the President will view 
them in the same light, and substantially admit them. In 
case there be any other question of secondary or minor 
importance, to be in like manner included in the general 
and definite adjustment, it will be easy, and follow of 
course, after we have agreed on the most essential articles 
or points ; we will then also determine the true import of 
the several propositions laid down, and explain each one 
of them with the necessary clearness, accuracy, and pre- 
cision. 

If, however, you should find any difficulty or obstacle 



76 



to the acceptance of the proposals I have now the honor 
to make to you, and are of opinion, that by any other 
mode we may attain the desired object, without deviating 
from the fundamental principles and basis of justice and 
reciprocal convenience, I will, with great pleasure, be 
ready to adopt it, provided it be compatible with the 
powers given me by the king, my master. In this view, 
you can propose such changes or modifications, as you 
may see fit, as are calculated to remove all difficulties on 
both sides, and reconcile the rights, interests, and wishes 
of both powers. 

In the mean time, I hope that the course pursued by 
the President (en la marcha de su conducta) will cor- 
respond with the sentiments and uniform profession of 
amity and perfect harmony existing between his majesty 
and the United States ; and f am therefore constrained to 
reclaim and protest formally, as 1 now do, against all mea- 
sures whatsoever, injurious to the rights of the crown of 
Spain, and to renew, as I hereby do, the protest already 
made against the occupation of Amelia Island, and against 
the orders to occupy Galveston, inasmuch as the United 
States having no right whatever, either to the said island, 
or to Galveston, they neither had, nor could have, a just 
motive or cause to sanction similar acts of violence in the 
midst of peace. 

I await your answer to this note, in order that we may 
accelerate the moment of agreeing on just and fit measures 
for carrying the definitive settlement of all pending dif- 
ferences into effect. 

In the mean time, I renew to you, Sir, the assurances 
of my constant respect. 

God preserve you many years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 



77 



[translation.] 
The same to the same. 

Washington, 10th Feb. 1818. 

Sir, 

The multiplicity of business which I believe has, and 
still does engage your attention, from the necessity of pre- 
paring and laying before the Congress the papers and in- 
formation called for on different subjects, must assuredly 
have prevented you from replying as yet to my note of the 
24th of the last month; it is, therefore, unnecessary for 
me to trouble you, by trespassing on your attention to urge 
the importance of your answer, as 1 feel assured you are 
as fully aware of it as I am. But the earnest wish I have 
to accelerate the negotiation that has been opened, and 
thereby to come to a final arrangement of the differences 
pending between his Catholic Majesty's government and 
yours, impels me to take this step. I therefore request 
you, Sir, to be pleased to inform me, as soon as you pos- 
sibly can, whether the proposals offered in my aforesaid 
note come up to, or approach the wishes of this republic ; 
and if, with the view of satisfying them, you can devise 
another just mode, calculated to reconcile the rights of both 
nations upon some principle of reciprocal utility and con- 
venience, I hope y ou will communicate it to me, in full 
confidence, that I shall not hesitate a moment to accede 
to any modification or expedient, founded on a basi3 of 
acknowledged justice and mutual utility, because it is to 
such a basis that all the instructions and powers I have 
received from my sovereign refer. 

The United States having manifested a wish to obtain 
the Floridas, his Catholic Majesty has condescended to 
accede thereto, as a proof of his friendship and high con- 
sideration for the United States, and has authorized me to 
stipulate the cession] of those two provinces for an equi- 



78 



valent of territory westward of the Mississippi. Having 
proved, on the part of his Majesty's government, by the 
most complete evidence of which moral facts are suscep- 
tible, and by a conviction in no wise inferior to that of 
mathematical truths, that the proper boundaries of Loui- 
siana, eastward of the Mississippi, are defined by the 
course of that river, and thence by the Iberville and the 
lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain ; and that to the 
westward, they never did, nor could extend beyond 
the rivers Carcasuand Marmentas orMarmenteo, running 
between Nachitochez and Adaes, across Red River, and 
thence northward of a line not yet fixed, and to be settled 
by commissioners to be appointed by both governments, 
it is clear that the proposals ofTered in my note for the final 
settlement of the question of boundaries, cannot fail to 
appear advantageous to your government, and satisfactory 
to the just wishes of the United States. But if, for their 
greater satisfaction, you can point out an expedient by 
which the said proposals may be still further modified, 
without detracting from the acknowledged principles of 
common justice and reciprocal convenience, I am ready 
to attend to, and stipulate it immediately, if it comes 
within the sphere of my powers and instructions ; and in 
case it should not, by presenting, perchance, combina- 
tions which could not be foreseen by his Catholic Majesty, 
I will immediately dispatch a courier to Madrid, to in- 
form my government of the demands of yours, and re- 
quest more ample powers adapted to them. 

The question of indemnities can be attended with no 
difficulty. The Spanish government has always been 
willing to give due satisfaction for the losses and in- 
juries sustained by citizens of this republic, and commit- 
ted by Spaniards, contrary to the law of nations and the 
existing treaty, but it cannot relinquish its claim to com- 
prehend, in like manner, in the adjustment of those losses 
and injuries, such as have been committed by citizens and 



79 



authorities of this republic on the crown and subjects of 
Spain, in violation of the same rights and treaty. Your 
government, sensible of the justice of this demand, can- 
not fail to accede to it ; thus, by ratifying the convention 
agreed on in 1802, as I have already proposed to you, 
the question of indemnities will be easily settled and de- 
termined. 

The King, my master, being desirous of giving the 
United States and the whole world incontestible proofs of 
the rectitude and sincerity of his dispositions, and of his 
love of justice and good faith, is ready to submit all the 
questions embraced by the pending differences, to the 
arbitration of one or more of the powers of Europe, in 
whom the United States may have the greatest confidence, 
they and his Majesty respectively engaging to abide irre- 
vocably by the decision of such arbitrament. In cases 
where justice alone is sought for, this reference must be 
particularly desirable, and has been frequently resorted 
to, as well by individuals, as by the most respectable na- 
tions, on controverted questions. 

The British government, on being informed of the dif- 
ficulties attending the negotiations pending between 
Spain and the United States, made an offer of its media- 
tion for the purpose of reconciling them, and the Presi- 
dent has not been pleased to accept it, as I have been 
lately informed by the minister of England to these states. 
From this refusal I am to infer, that the President is will- 
ing, on his part, to remove all the obstacles which oppose 
the prompt and happy termination of the negotiation 
pending, and, under this impression, which is due to the 
uprightness, rectitude, and good faith of the American 
government, I flatter myself that it will not be necessary 
to have recourse to the mediation or arbitration of friendly 
or neutral powers, to settle and terminate, on principles 
of justice, the existing differences between tbe United 
States and Spain ; and if unfortunately this should not be 



80 



the case, I also flatter myself, that your government 
will approve of one of those modes, as being dictated 
by a sincere love of peace and justice due to such oc- 
casions. 

I therefore hope, Sir, that you will reply as soon as 
possible to the proposals made in my last note, and com- 
municate to me whatever you may think most conducive 
to the happy termination of the pending negotiation, and 
still further to strengthen the bonds of friendship and good 
understanding between the two nations. 

In the mean while, 1 have the honour to renew to you 
the assurances of my respect, and I pray God to preserve 
you many years. 

LUIS DE ONIS. 



The Secretary of State, to Don Luis de Onis, Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from Spain. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

March 12th, 1818. 

Sir, 

The admission in your letter of the 24th of January, 
that all the facts, grounds, and arguments, alleged in 
your previous notes of 29th December, and of 5th and 
8th January, in support of the pretensions of your go- 
vernment, upon the several points of difference which 
have so lon^ subsisted between the United States and 
Spain, are essentially the same as had already been ad- 
vanced and discussed, at the period of the extraordinary 
mission to Spain, in 1805 — while it justifies the reluct- 
ance, on the part of the American government, manifested 
in my letter of the 16th January, to the renewal of an 
exhausted discussion, cannot but excite some surprise, as 
comporting so little with the professions of the earnest de- 
sire of your government to bring these differences to a 
speedy and happy termination, which have been so 



81 



strongly and repeatedly expressed, as well in your 
notes, as in the recent communications from Don Franciso 
Pizarro to the minister of the United States at Madrid. 
The observation, that truth is of all times, and that rea- 
son and justice are founded upon immutable principles, 
has never been contested by the United States ; but nei- 
ther truth, reason, nor justice, consist in stubbornness of 
assertion, nor in the multiplied repetition of error. I re- 
ferred you the letters from the extraordinary mission of 
1805, to Don Pedro Cevallos, for an ample and satisfac- 
tory refutation of the supposed facts, grounds, and argu- 
ments now reproduced by you. You reply, by telling me, 
that " there does not appear to be a single incident to give 
the smallest support to the pretensions of my government ; 
that all the vague positions on which it has been attempted 
to found them, have been refuted and dissipated by the 
Spanish government, by a demonstration so luminous and 
convincing, as to leave no alternative to reason to resist 
it." And you, more than once, intimate, that the Ame- 
rican government does not, itself, believe in the validity 
of the statements and arguments used by its ministers, in 
support of the claims of the United States, as asserted by 
them. 

To language and sentiments such as these, the govern- 
ment of the United States cannot reply ; nor can it, 
without an effort, continue at all a discussion sullied by 
such unworthy and groundless imputations. 

I am directed by the President to confine the observa- 
tions upon your late notes, to those parts of them which 
have relation to the essential subjects of controversy be- 
tween the two nations. 

To give a single instance of that course of argument, 
which you represent as equivalent to mathematical de- 
monstration in favor of Spain, it will be sufficient to refer 
to your assertions, in relation to the question of the east- 
ern boundaries of Louisiana, as retroceded to France, by 



82 



the treaty of St. Ildephonso in 1800, and ceded by 
France to the United States in 1803. The claim of the 
United States, under that cession, to the territory east of 
the Mississippi, as far as the river Perdido, rests, as you 
well know, upon the words in the two treaties, describing 
the colony or province of Louisiana, ceded by them, as 
having the same extent, not only that it had at the time of 
the retrocession in the hands of Spain, but also that it had 
when France possessed it, and such as it should be, after 
treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other 
states. You know also with what force it was urged by the 
ministers of the United States at Aranjuez, in 1805, that 
those words, referring to the primitive possession of the 
province by France, could have had no other meaning than 
that of extending the retrocession to the Perdido, because 
the province had always had that extent when in possession 
of France. And what is your reply to this argument, which 
you are pleased to include under the general censure of 
vague and groundless positions ? It is no other than the 
supposition of a treaty of 1764, by virtue of which you 
say France ceded the western remnant of Louisiana to 
Spain, a year after having ceded the eastern part of it, 
from the Mississippi to the Perdido, to England. With 
the aid of this treaty, you are enabled, first, to discover 
an interval of time between the two cessions, and during 
which France possessed Louisiana, bounded eastward by 
the M ississippi ; and secondly, to include this treaty be- 
tween Spain and France among those described in the ar- 
ticle of the treaty of St. Ildephonso, as "the treaties sub- 
sequently entered into between Spain and other states.''* 

There is reason to believe that no such treaty of 1764 
ever existed. That the cessions of Louisiana, westward 
of the Mississippi, to Spain, and, eastward of that river 
to the Perdido, to England, were made by France, 
both on the 3d of November, 1762, is certain, and that 
the acceptance by the king of Spain of the cession made 



83 



to him, took place on the 13th of the same November, 
1762; the proof of which is in the very order from the 
king of France to L'Abbadie, for the delivery of the pro- 
vince to the officers of the king of Spain. The province 
had never belonged to France a single day, without ex- 
tending to the Perdido. Nor can it be necessary to remind 
you that the very treaty of cession, by which France sur- 
rendered her possession of Louisiana to Spain, cannot be 
comprehended in the description of the treaties subse- 
quently entered into between Spain and other states. 

As this simple reference to a notorious and unquestion- 
able fact annihilates all that course of reasoning upon 
which your understanding rejects all doubt, so a recur- 
rence to another fact equally notorious, replies as decisive- 
ly to your appeal to the treaty of the 6th February, 1778, 
between the United States and France. You say, that in 
the year 1800, France could not have acquired any terri- 
tory east of the Mississippi, without a monstrous viola- 
tion of that treaty, forgetting that that treaty, and all its 
obligations upon France had, before the year 1800, ceased 
to exist. 

The fact, that the cessions of the two parts of Louisiana 
to Spain and England, were made on the same day, may 
serve no less as a reply to all the verbal criticisms, so 
gravely urged by Mr. Cevallos, and now repeated by you, 
on the force of the terms retrocede and retrocession, used 
in the treaty of St. Ildephonso. The plain import of the 
words is nei ther more nor less than giving back — restoring. 
It does not, and cannot be made to imply, that both the 
parties to the restoration must, of necessity, be the same 
as both the parties to the grant. They only imply that 
the object and the party granting, or the party receiving 
it, as restored, are the same. To use an illustration from 
the concerns of individual life — suppose A. by two sepa- 
rate deeds, grants half an acre of land to B, and the other 
half to C. — B,by subsequent purchase, obtains the half acre 

F 



84 

granted to C. and then regrants the whole acre back to A. 
By whatever denomination the two half acres may have 
been called, in the interval between the first grant and the 
restorati on, B. might, with the most perfect propriety, be 
said to retrocede the whole; and if in the act of restora- 
tion the acre should be called by the same name, and ex- 
pressly described as having the same extent as when it had 
been first owned by A, with what shadow of justice could 
B. pretend that his regrant was only of the half acre he 
had first received from A, because the other half acre had, 
in the interval, been called by another name, and for some 
time owned by another person ? That the term of retro- 
cession is in common use, in this sense, take the following 
passage from the English translation of Alcedo's dic- 
tionary. 

" By a treaty in 1783, Great Britain retroceded to Spain 
all the territory which both Spain and France had ceded 
to Great Britain in 1763." 

There would be nothing in the terms retrocede or retro- 
cession, which could limit the territories restored by Spain 
to the boundaries under which she had first received part 
of them from France ; even if the original cessions of the 
two parts had been made at different times ; and even if 
those words, " with the same extent it had when in the 
hands of France" had not been inserted in the treaty of 
St. lldephonso. But, when it is considered that the ces- 
sions, by France, of the two parts of Louisiana were made 
to Spain and to England on the same day, when we know 
that the cession of the part ceded to England, had been 
made for the benefit of Spain, as it was an equivalent for 
the restoration by England of the island of Cuba to Spain, 
and when we seek for any possible meaning to the words 
referring to the extent of Louisiana, when before owned 
by France, to our minds, Sir, the conclusion is irresisti- 
ble, that the terms retrocede and retrocession can have in 
this case no other meaning than that for which we con- 



85 



tend, and that they include the giving back to France the 
whole of Louisiana, which had ever belonged to France, 
and which it was, at the time of the signature of the treaty 
of St. Ildephonso, in the power of Spain to restore. 

By the words in the third article of the treaty of St. 
Ildephonso, adopted in the treaty of cession of 1803 to 
the United States, Spain retrocedes to France the colony 
or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it 
" now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when 
France possessed it, and such as it ought to be after the 
treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other 
states." At the negotiation of Aranjuez in 1805, your al- 
leged treaty of 1764, never occurred to the imagination 
of Mr. Cevallos, as one of these subsequent treaties ; for, 
after citing this clause of the article, he says, in his letter 
to Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe, of the 24th February, 
1805, u the treaties here alluded to, are not, nor can be 
others than those of 1783, between Spain and England, 
and 1795, between Spain and the United States." The 
American ministers, in their answer of 8th March, 1805 ? 
explicitly agree in opinion with Mr. Cevallos on this 
point; and your intimation of a treaty of 1764, to which 
you suppose the clause also to apply, is as incompatible 
with the pretensions of your own government in 1805, as 
with those of the United States at this day. 

To account for the peculiar phraseology used in this 
description, inserted in the third article of the treaty of 
St. Ildephonso, we must advert to the peculiar situation 
of the territory to be conveyed, and to what must have 
been the intention of the parties. It was a colony or pro- 
vince to be restored ; and therefore the object of France 
could have been no other than to obtain the restoration of 
the whole original colony, as far as it was in the power of 
Spain to restore it. But there was a part of the original 
colony, which had been ceded by France to England, 
which had, in process of time, become a part of the Unit- 

f2 



86 



jm! Slates, and which not being then in the hands of Spain, 
she could not restore. There was another part which had 
been ceded by France directly to Spain, which still re- 
mained in her hands, but subject to certain conditions sti- 
pulated by Spain, in a treaty with the United States ; and 
there was a third part which France had ceded to Eng- 
land, in 1762, but which had afterwards fallen into the 
hands of Spain, and which she was equally competent to 
restore, as if it had been ceded by France to herself. As 
the boundaries of this colony or Province never had been 
precisely defined, and had been, from its first settlement, 
a subject of dispute between France and Spain, the parties 
had no means of recurring to any former definition of 
boundaries, to carry their intention into effect ; as they had 
no geographical lines or landmarks to which they could 
recur. They assumed their definition from circumstances 
incidental to the present and past time. If the intention 
had been to cede back the province, only with the extent 
it actually had in the hands of Spain, the parties would 
have said so, and omitted the other clause, which, in that 
case, would have been not merely superfluous, but tending 
to perplex that which would have been clear without them. 
If it had been intended that Spain should restore to France, 
only what she had received from France, nothing could 
have been more clear and easy than to have said so ; but 
then, the reference to the extent of the colony, when France 
possessed it, would have been not merely absurd, but 
contradictory to that intention. The very use of both the 
terms, province ox colony, shows that the parties were look- 
ing to the original state, as well as the actual condition of 
the territory to be restored. Louisiana, the actual Span- 
ish province, was one thing, and Louisiana, the original 
French colony, was another : the adoption of both the 
words, is of itself a strong presumption, that the intention 
was to restore, not only the actual province, but so much 



8T 



of any other province as was then in the hands of Spain, 
and had formed part of the original French colony. 

Assume the intention of the parties to have been that 
for which we contend, and under the existing circumstan- 
ces they could scarcely have expressed it by any other 
words than those which are found in the article. Assume 
that they had any other intention, and you can find no 
rational meaning for their words. The province was to 
be restored, with the extent it actually had in the hands 
of Spain : the colony was to be restored, with the extent 
it had when formerly possessed by France. Spain could 
not restore the parts of the original colony which were 
not in her actual possession, and which already formed 
parts of the western states and territories of this Union ; but 
she could restore that part of the colony, of which she 
had become possessed by a treaty of 1783, with Great 
Britain. Mr. Cevallos urged with some earnestness, that 
the first clause having marked the extent of the colony or 
province, such u as it then had in the hands of Spain," it 
would be inconsistent and absurd to suppose, that the 
words u and that it had when France possessed it," could 
be intended to mark a greater extent, because it would be 
saying in one breath, that the cession was of the same ex- 
tent, and of more than the same extent, that it had in the 
possession of Spain. But there is no absurdity or incon- 
sistency in modifying, by one clause of a definition, an 
extent described in another clause of the same definition • 
no more than, in the description of a surface, the line in 
breadth is inconsistent with the line in length. Accord- 
ing to this argument of Mr. Cevallos, the words "and 
that it had when France possessed it," had no meaning at 
all ; they merely repeated what had been fully and com- 
pletely expressed by the preceding clause ; but, if they 
had no meaning, what possible motive could the parties 
have for inserting them, when it must have been perfect- 
ly familiar to the memory of both, that the extent of the 



88 



province or colony, when in the hands of France, had in- 
cluded West Florida to the Perdido, which territory was 
also then in the actual possession of Spain. If it were pos- 
sible to suppose that the ministers of France and Spain, 
in the very article defining the extent of the country to be 
conveyed, could have been so careless as to admit an idle 
waste of words, the very composition of this article carries 
internal evidence with it, that no such improvidence is 
imputable to those by whom it was drawn up. The re- 
ference to the extent of the colony in the primitive pos- 
session of France, could not be to a time when the pro- 
perty of it had been no longer hers. It could not be to 
say over again what had been said in the immediately pre- 
ceding clause : every word of the description carries with 
it evidence of deep deliberation and significancy. The 
first clause marks the intention of the parties, by the inci- 
dent of actual possession by Spain ; all of which was to be 
restored; the second clause modifies by enlarging the ex- 
tent, from the incident of original possession by France ; 
and the third clause modifies, by restricting the grant to 
the conditions which Spain had stipulated concerning the 
territory, with other states. Altogether, the clear and ex- 
plicit meaning of the whole article is, that Spain should 
restore to France as much of old French Louisiana as she 
had to restore : but under such restrictions as the engage- 
ments contracted by Spain with other powers required of 
her good faith to secure. 

Let us pass to the consideration of the western bounda- 
ries of Louisiana. 

With the notes of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney to Don 
Pedro Cevallos, of 28th January, 1805, a memoir upon 
these boundaries was presented to that minister, proving 
that they extended eastward to the Perdido, and westward 
to the Rio Bravo, or Grande del Norte. They observed 
in that note, that " the facts and principles which justify 
this conclusion, are so satisfactory to their government, 



89 

as to convince it that the United States have not a better 
right to the Island of New Orleans, under the cession re- 
ferred to, than they have to the whole district of territory 
thus described/' 

In their note of the 20th April, 1805, to the same mi- 
nister, replying to this argument in support of the preten- 
sions of your government with regard to these limits, they 
lay down and establish, by a chain of reasoning, which 
neither Mr. Cevallos, at the time, nor your government, 
at any period since, have attempted to break, three prin- 
ciples, sanctioned alike by immutable justice, and the ge- 
neral practice of the European nations, which have formed 
settlements and held possessions in this hemisphere; and 
by the application of which to the facts also stated in their 
note, this question of the western boundary ought then to 
have been, and eventually must be settled. These prin- 
ciples were, 

First. " That, when any European nation takes posses- 
sion of any extent of sea coast, that possession is under- 
stood as extending into the interior country, to the sources 
of the rivers emptying within that coast, to all their 
branches, and the country they cover, and to give it a 
right in exclusion of all other nations to the same." 

Secondly. " That whenever one European nation makes 
a discovery and takes possession of any portion of this 
continent, and another afterwards does the same at some 
distance from it, where the boundary between them is not 
determined by the principle above mentioned, that the mid- 
dle distance becomes such of course." 

Thirdly. " That whenever any European nation has 
thus acquired a right to any portion of territory on this 
continent, that right can never be diminished or affected 
by any other power, by virtue of purchases made by grants 
or conquests of the natives, within the limits thereof." 

The facts stated in this last mentioned note, and to which 
these principles were applied in support of the claim of the 



00 



United States, under the cession of Louisiana fry France 
10 them, were, 

1. That the Mississippi in its whole length to the ocean, 
was discovered by French subjects from Canada,* in 1683. 

2. That La Salle, a Frenchman, with a commission and 
authority from Louis XIV. discovered the bay of St. 
Bernard, and formed a settlement there, on the western 
side of the river Colorado, in the year 1685, and' that 
the possession thus taken, in the bay of St. Bernard, in 
connexion with that on the Mississippi, had always been 
understood, as of right it ought, to extend to the Rio 
Bravo. 

3. That this boundary, thus founded upon possession, 
was described as forming the limits of Louisiana, in the 
grant by Louis XIV. to Crozat in 1712. 

4. That it was supported by the testimony of the histo- 
rical writers, Du Pratz and Champigny ; by an historical 
and political memoir on Louisiana, written by the count 
de Vergennes, the minister of Louis XVI. ; by a chart of 
Louisiana, published in 1762, by Don Thomas Lopez, 
geographer to the king of Spain ; and by a map of De 
Lisle, of the academy of Sciences, at Paris, revised and 
republished there in 1782. 

To these principles, thus clear, equitable, and explicit 
— to these facts, thus precise, authentic, and unsophisti- 
cated, what was opposed by Don Pedro Cevallos at that 
time, and what is now alleged by you ? 

Mr. Cevallos began by admitting that the western limits 
of Louisiana had never been exactly fixed ; and alleged, 
that in the year 1690, five or six years after the possession 
taken and the settlement formed by La Salle, captain Alon- 
zo de Leon, under a commission Jfrom the viceroy of Mexi- 
co, examined the bay of Espiritu Santo (St. Bernard) 
took possession of the territory, and founded the mission 
of St. Francisco de Texas. Mr. Cevallos asserted, that 
it uoidd be very easy to make it appear, that France never 



91 



bad claimed this extent for Louisiana, but he did noi 
make it appear. He also said that if France had claimed 
it, Spain had never recognized, and was not bound to ac- 
knowledge the claim. 

Mr. Cevallos said, that the limits between Louisiana 
and the Texas had always been known, even when the 
French possessed Louisiana ; but he had just before ac- 
knowledged, that they had never been fixed. He spoke 
of missions founded near the beginning of last century 
by the venerable Marge), of the order of St. Francisco ; he 
alluded to plans and documents, and historical relations, 
which were not to be found in his department, but many 
of which, he added, were in the department of the inte- 
rior, besides those which were in the viceroyalty of 
Mexico. But he never pretended a possession, by Spain, 
of territories in question, of an earlier date than 1690. 

And what are these plans, and documents, and histori- 
cal relations, which, after the lapse of thirteen years, you 
have drawn forth from all the archives of Spain, and all 
the historical disquisitions, upon the discovery and con- 
quest of the New World ? Is it to that catalogue, biogra- 
phical and geographical, of Spanish adventurers, and of 
the numberless regions explored by them in the sixteenth 
century, which swells your note of the 5th of January, 
that we are to look for the limits of Louisiana and of 
Texas ? Or is it to that " Royal ordinance issued by Phi- 
lip the Second, enjoining the extermination of all foreign- 
ers who should dare to penetrate into the Gulph of Mexi- 
co," by virtue of which the viceroy fitted out the expe- 
dition to scour the country, and hunt out the French of 
La Salle's settlement ; is it to that royal order that you 
appeal for proof of the prior title of Spain ? It is even 
so. But, as the voyages of Ponce de Leon in 1511, of 
Francisco de Garay in 1518, and of Hernando de Soto in 
J 538, have no more bearing upon this question than the 
voyages of Christopher Columbus and Sebastian Cabot, so 



92 



you must be sensible that the royal exterminating order of 
Philip the Second, if it proved any thing, would prove 
fatal to the whole province or colony of Louisiana. If 
that order could have been carried into execution, no such 
colony as that of Louisiana could ever have been esta- 
blished by France. That order, and any proceeding of 
the viceroy of Mexico under it, can no more affect the 
right of the United States to the limits marked by the set- 
tlement of La Salle, than it can impair their title to the 
Island of New Orleans. Far more honorable would it be, 
Sir, to the character of your nation and the credit of your 
government, to bury, in the profoundest oblivion, the 
memory of that atrocious order, than at this day to pro- 
duce it, for the purpose of bolstering up a title, for 
which you have in vain ransacked the records of the Spa- 
nish monarchy to discover a better support. 

To the efficacy , however, of this royal order, your whole 
argument, in behalf of the pretensions of your government, 
perpetually recurs ; for, although in some passages of your 
note, you appear disposed to allow to the colony of Louisi- 
ana, at least the eastern banks of the Mississippi, yet you 
are as frequently shrinking even from this concession, and 
representing the whole colony as an encroachment upon the 
dominion in Spain ; at onetime representing it as a profound 
stratagem of Louis the Fourteenth, seizing with rapacious 
avidity, the unsuspecting moment of confidence of his 
grandson, Philip the Fifth, while placing him upon the 
throne of Spain : and at another, holding it up as the act of 
a disordered imagination of the same Louis the Fourteenth, 
manifested in the grant of 1712, to Crozat. This grant 
you pronounce to be absurd and completely despicable ; 
but for what reason it is not easy to conjecture. It cer- 
tainly does not favor the pretensions of your government, 
and it has none of the exterminating features of the royal 
order of Philip the Second ; but we consider it, as it has 
always been considered by the world, as a document, not 



93 



only indicative of sound judgment and discretion, but as 
marking 1 the limits of Louisiana, as always claimed by 
France, and transferred, as relates to the western limits, 
with her title to that province, to the United States. 

It is remarkable, that, in imitation of Mr. Cevallos, you 
also, after repeatedly insisting that the boundaries of Lou- 
isiana were well known, and always acknowledged by 
France, finally conclude by admitting that they never 
were fixed or agreed upon. You repeat, time after time, 
that the French never disputed the right of Spain to all 
the territory westward of the Mississippi, while you can- 
not deny the settlement of La Salle at the Bay of St. 
Bernard, in 1684 ; nor that the French settlements of Nat- 
chez and Natchitochez were made and maintained in spite 
of ail the military expeditions, rigorous executions, and 
exterminating orders, which the viceroy of Mexico could 
send against them. 

We may admit that, so long as the Spanish viceroys 
could exterminate every foreigner who dared to penetrate 
into the Gulf of Mexico, they had the royal order of Phi- 
lip the Second for so doing. The bull of Pope Alexan- 
der the Sixth is a document of still earlier date, and at 
least of less disgusting import, upon which Spain once 
rested her claims to yet more extensive dominions in this 
western world. With equal show of reason, and with 
less outrage upon the rights of humanity, might you have 
alleged that bull as the incontrovertible proof of the Spa- 
nish claims, as to bring forth at this day, for its only sub- 
stitute, that royal order of Philip the Second. 

You know, Sir, and your own notes f urnish, themselves, 
the most decisive proofs, that France, while she held the 
colony of Louisiana, never did acknowledge the Missis- 
sippi as the western boundary of that province. The 
claim of France always did extend westward to the Rio 
Bravo, and the only boundaries ever acknowledged by 
her, before the cession to Spain of 3d Nov. 1762, were 



94 



those marked out in the grant from Louis the Fourteenth 
to Crozat. She always claimed the territory which you 
call Texas, as being within the limits, and forming part 
of Louisiana ; which, in that grant, is declared to be 
bounded westward by New Mexico, eastward by Caroli- 
na, and extending inward to the Illinois and to the sources 
of the Mississippi, and of its principal branches. 

Mr. Cevallos says, that these claims of France were ne- 
ver admitted or recognized by Spain. Be it so. Neither 
were the claims of Spain ever acknowledged or admitted 
by France : the boundary was disputed and never settled ; 
and here is a simple statement of the grounds alleged by 
each of the parties in support of their claims : 
On the part o f the United States. 

1. The discovery of the Mississippi, from near its 
source to the ocean, by the French from Canada, in 
1683. 

2. The possession taken and establishment made by La 
Salle, at the bay of St. Bernard, west of the rivers Tri- 
nity and Colorado, by authority from Louis the Four- 
teenth, in 1685. 

3. The charter of Louis the Fourteenth to Crozat, in 
1712. 

4. The historical authority of Du Pratz and Champig- 
ny, and of the count de Yergennes. 

5. The geographical authority of De Lisle's map ; and 
especially that of the map of Don Thomas Lopez, geo- 
grapher to the king of Spain, published in 1762. 

These documents were all referred to in the letter from 
Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe to Mr. Cevallos, of 20th 
April, 1805. Since which time, and in further confirma- 
tion of the same claims, the government of the United 
States are enabled to refer you to the following. 

6. A map published by Homann, at Nuremberg, in 
1712. 

7. A geographical work, published in 1717, at London, 



95 



entitled Atlas Geographicus, or a Complete System of 
Geography, Ancient and Modern • in which the map of 
Louisiana marks its extent from the Rio Bravo to the Per- 
dido. In both these maps, the fort built by La Salle is laid 
down on the spot now called Matagorda. 

8. An official British map, published in 1755, by 
Bowen, intended to point out the boundaries of the Bri- 
tish, Spanish, and French colonies in North America. 

9. The narrative published at Paris, of Hennepin, in 
1683 ; of Tonti, in 1697 ; and of Joutel, in 1713. 

10. The letter from colonel La Harpe to Don Martin 
D'Alareonne. of 8th July, 1719. (A. 1. B. 2.) 

11. The order from the French governor of Louisi- 
ana, Bienville, to La Harpe, of the 10th August, 1721. 
(C.3.) 

12. The geographical work of Don An(onio de Alcedo, 
a Spanish geographer of the highest eminence: this work 
and the map of Lopez having been published after the 
cession of Louisiana to Spain, in 1762, afford decisive 
evidence of what Spain herself considered as the western 
boundary of Louisiana, when she had no interest in con- 
testing it against another state. (D. 4.) 

On the part of Spain. 

1. The voyages of Ponce de Leon, Vasquez de Ay lion, 
Panfilo de Narvaez, Hernando de Soto, LuisMoscoso, and 
other Spanish travellers, in the sixteenth century, who 
never made any settlement upon any of the territories in 
question ; but who travelled, as you observe, into coun- 
tries too tedious to enumerate. 

The establishment of the new kingdoms of Leon and 
Santander, in 1595, and the province of Cohaquila in 
1600. 

3. The province of Texas, founded in 1690. 

Here you will please to observe begins the conflict with 
the claims of France to the western boundary of Louisiana, 
transferred by the cession of the province to the United 



96 



States. The presidios, or settlements of Las Texas were, 
by your own statement, adverse settlements to that of La 
Salle, who, six years before, had taken formal possession 
of the country in the name of, and by authority of a char- 
ter from, Louis Fourteenth. They were preceded by 
an expedition from Mexico the year before, that is, 1689, 
to hunt out the French remaining of the establishment of 
La Salle. Now, what right had the viceroy of Mexico 
to hunt out the French who had formed a settlement under 
the sanction of their sovereign's authority ? You will tell 
me, that from the time when Santa Fe, the capital of New 
Mexico, was built, Spain considered all the territory east 
and north of that province, as far as the Mississippi and 
the Missouri, as her property ; that the whole circumfer- 
ence of the Gulf of Mexico was hers ; and that Philip the 
Second had issued a royal order to exterminate every fo- 
reigner who should dare to penetrate to it ; so that the 
whole question of right between the United States and 
Spain, with regard to this boundary, centres in this — the 
naked pretention of Spain to the whole circumference of 
the Gulf of Mexico, with the exterminating order of 
Philip the Second on one side, and the actual occupancy 
of France, by a solemn charter from Louis Fourteenth, on 
the other. Well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe 
write to Mr. Cevallos, in 1805, that the claim of the Uni- 
ted States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo was as clear 
as their right to the island of New Orleans. 

In the letter of Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe to Mr. 
Cevallos of the 20th of April, 1805, referring to the histori- 
cal documents relative to the discovery and naming of 
Louisiana, they state that the Mississippi was discovered, 
with " its waters and dependant country as low down the 
river as the Arkansas, by the Sieurs Joliet and Marquette, 
from Canada, as early as the year 1673, and to its mouth 
by the father Hennepin, in 1680 ; and by De la Salle and 
Tonti, who descended the river with sixty men to the 



97 



ocean, and called the country Louisiana, in 1682 ; and in 
respect to the bay of St. Bernard in 1685." That this 
was done at these periods in the name and u under the au- 
thority of France, by acts which proclaimed her sove- 
reignty over the whole country, to other powers in a man- 
ner the most public and solemn, such as making settle- 
ments and building forts within it." 

To this Mr. Cevallos made no reply in 1805. But 
you, after giving an account of the murder by Spaniards 
of R6n6 de Laudonniere, observe, that u the story related 
of a Recollect Friar, called Father Hennepin, is still more 
ridiculous, who is said to have been made a prisoner by 
the Indians at the time they were at war with the French 
of Canada, and taken to the Illinois, whence he was oc- 
cupied in exploring the country as far as the banks of the 
river St. Louis or Mississippi, of which he took possession 
in the name of Louis the Fourteenth, and gave it the name 
of Louisiana, (doubtless in his secret thoughts and by a 
mere mental act.)" You add, that these accounts and 
others of a like nature are " contemptible in themselves, 
even although the facts they relate were authentic, since 
nothing can be inferred from them that can favor the idea 
started by those who speak of those transient adventures 
and incursions." 

I have in my possession, Sir, and it shall, when you 
please, be subject to your inspection, a volume, published 
at Paris in the year 1683, the title of which is, " Descrip- 
tion de la Louisiane, nouvellement decouverte, au Sud- 
Ouest de la Nouvelle France, par ordre du Roy, dediee a 
sa Majeste. Par le R. P. Luis Hennepin, Missionaire 
Recollect et Notairo apostolique." (Description of 
Louisiana recently discovered to the south-west of New 
France, by order of the king. Dedicated to his Majesty 
by the Rev. Father Louis Hennepin, a Recollect mission- 
ary and apostolic notary.) In the preface to the king, the 
author says— " Sire, I should never have dared to take the 



m 



liberty of offering to your Majesty the narrative of a new 
discovery, which the Sieur de la Salle, governor of Fort 
Frontenac, my companions and myself, have just made to 
the south-west of New France, if it had not been under- 
taken by your orders." <c We have given the name of 
Louisiana to this great discovery, being persuaded that 
your Majesty would not disapprove that a part of the 
earth watered by a river of more than eight hundred 
leagues, and much, greater than Europe, which may be 
called the delight of America, and which is capable of 
forming a great empire, should henceforth be known by 
the august name of Louis, that it may thereby have a sort 
of right to your protection, and hope for the advantage of 
belonging to you." 

Now, Sir, permit me to request you to compare this au- 
thentic statement with that perversion of all historical evi- 
dence, by which you have styled and have attempted to 
make the story of Father Hennepin's discovery of Louis- 
iana ridiculous. Here is a book published at Paris, dedi- 
cated to Louis the XlVth, at the most glorious period of 
his reign, declaring to the world the discovery of Louis- 
iana — declaring that it was made by his orders, and called 
by his name, for the express purpose of entitling it to be- 
come his property. Is this contemptible ? Is this a secret 
thought, or a mere mental act ? Is this a transient adven- 
ture or incursion ? And, after calling this information too 
vague and uncertain, upon which to found a title, can you 
talk of the rights of possession derived to Spain from the 
travels of Ponce de Leon, Francisco de Garay, and Vas- 
qucz de Aylion ? 

Your view of the expeditions and adventure of La Salle 
is equally remote from the real and well authenticated facts. 
" Let us see," you say, " what importance can be attached 
to what is said of Bernard [Robert] de la Salle, who in 
1679 descended from Canada to the Mississippi, and there 
built Fort Cre-cccceur, according to Mr. du Pratz, or Fort 



99 



Prudhomme, according to others. What is certain, a- 
mounts to this, that he only made a rapid incursion from 
Canada to the Mississippi, as any other adventurer might 
do, crossing the territories of another nation ; that he re- 
turned to Quebec, without any further result, than that of 
an imperfect exploration of the country, and that he em- 
barked at Quebec for France, from whence he returned in 
1684, with an expedition composed of four vessels, com- 
manded by captain Beaujeu, to explore the mouth of the 
Mississippi, &c." In this passage you represent, 

J. The facts attending the expedition of La Salle as 
uncertain. 

2. That he only made a rapid incursion, as a private 
adventurer, and so far as related to his exploring expedi- 
tion, with an imperfect result. 

3. That he only went from Canada to the Mississippi, 
and thence returned to Quebec, whence he embarked for 
France. 

4. That he only crossed the territories of another na- 
tion, (meaning Spain.) 

I examine this part of your note, with a minuteness, 
which will be tedious to you, because it is precisely upon 
the character of La Salle's expeditions that the grant of 
Louisiana to Crozat, by Louis the XI Vth, is in express 
terms founded ; because you have represented these ex- 
peditions in the colours thus marked, with the avowed pur- 
pose of weakeniug the original title of Louisiana, and be- 
cause you know that the characters, diametrically oppo- 
site, which I shall now prove to have belonged to them, 
must lead to the result of an incontestible title, in France, 
and consequently, at this time, in the United States. I 
answer the above insinuations, in the order in which they 
have been stated. 

There are three narratives of the expeditions of La Salle, 
all published at Paris, by persons who accompanied him 
in them. 



100 



The first in 1683, by father Louis Hennepin ; the same 
volume from which I have already presented you an ex- 
tract. 

The second by the chevalier Tonti, governor of Fort 
St. Louis, at Illinois, published in 1097. 

The third by Joutel, who was with him in his last ex- 
pedition, and almost by his side when he fell by the hands 
of an assassin. 

Of all the heroic enterprizes, which in the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries signalized the discoveries by Euro- 
peans upon this continent, there is not one, of which the 
evidence is more certain, authentic, and particular, than 
those of La Salle. 

La Salle, after having residing many years in Canada, 
as governor of fort Frontenac, formed the project of explo- 
ring the country from thence to the Gulph of Mexico, 
and taking possession of it, in the name of his sovereign. 
He went to France for the purpose of obtaining the royal 
sanction to his enterprize ; " his majesty, (says TontiJ 
not content with merely approving his design, caused or- 
ders to be given to him, granting him permission to go and 
put it in execution ; and, to assist him to carry so vast a 
project into effect, shortly after, the necessary succours were 
furnished him, with entire liberty to dispose of all the 
countries which he might discover." 

He sailed from La Rochelle the 14th July, 1678, and 
arrived at Quebec the 15th of September. On the 18th 
of November, of the same year, he left fort Frontenac, to 
proceed upon his expedition, with thirty men, Tonti and 
Father Hennepin being of the company. After spending 
more than a year in traversing the four Lakes, now knowu 
by the names of Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Michigan, and 
erecting forts at suitable places, where he landed from 
them ; he embarked upon the Illinois river, and having 
descended it for some distance,, was obliged to stop, 
from the disappointment of losing a boat from which 



101 



he expected supplies. Here, upon the Illinois river, he 
built fort Crevecoeur — divided his company into two se- 
parate parties, one for ascending- the Mississippi to its 
source, and the other for proceeding down that river. Fa- 
ther Hennepin was of the former of these parties, and in 
their progress upwards, which they accomplished higher 
than the falls of St. Anthony, was taken prisoner by the 
Indians, and, after some time, was released by them ; found 
his way back to Quebec, and thence returned to France, 
and published the book of which 1 have spoken. In this 
book, published in 1683, at Paris, and marked as having 
been finished printing the 5th of January, of that year, 
three months before La Salle had reached the mouth of the 
Mississippi, there is a map of the river as far down as Hen- 
nepin descended it, after he parted from La Salle, and up- 
wards ? to the Falls of St. Anthony, and the river St. Francis, 
above them; at some distance above which, within a few 
leagues of its source, is the Oak Tree upon which the arms 
of France were carved, by the detachment from La Salle's 
expedition, authenticating with the most minute precision 
the discovery of the Mississippi, to within a small distance 
of its source, as well as its course to the Gulf of Mexico. 
On the same map are also marked the fort at the Mi amies, 
and that of Crevecoeur, on the Illinois river, constructed 
by La Salle's orders. 

In the mean while La Salle was obliged to leave the 
other part of his company, under the command of Tonti, 
and go back to Fort Frontenac for the supplies and re- 
inforcements which had failed him by the loss of his boat. 
He returned and joined them again in November, 1682, 
proceeded down to the Mississippi, and to the mouth of 
the Wabash, where they built the fort Prudhomme, 
which you have confounded with that of Crevecoeur, 
after which they continued descending and successively 
meeting the Cappa, Arkansas, Tensas, Abenake, Ta- 
cucas, and Natchez Indians, and, on the 7th of April, 



102 



1683, reached the mouth of the Mississippi, where, after 
the religious solemnity of a^ Te Deum, they took formal 
possession of the country, erected a cross, fastened the 
arms of France upon a tree, and built several huts, which 
they surrounded with suitable intrenchments. La f Salle 
having thus accomplished the object of his expedition, 
returned the same way, ascending the river, to his fort 
of Prudhomme, which he reached on the 12th of May, 
and where he was some time detained by sickness. " On 
his arrival at Quebec (says again Tonti,) he informed the 
whole city of his great discoveries, and of the voluntary 
submission of so many different Indian nations to the 
power of the king. A Te Deum was celebrated as a 
thanksgiving for this happy accession to the glory of the 
crown. The eagerness of Mr. La Salle to go and make 
known to the king and his ministers the success of his 
travels, obliged him to hasten his departure. He left 
Canada in the beginning of October, 1683." On his re- 
turn to France he was received with many marks of dis- 
tinction by the king and his ministers, and a new expe- 
dition was fitted out of four vessels and nearly three 
hundred persons, for the purpose of forming a colony at 
the mouth of the Mississippi. One of these ships was 
a frigate of the king, of 40 guns, commanded by Mr. de 
Beaujeu, in which La Salle himself, his brother Cavalier, 
and the principal persons belonging to the expedition 
embarked. Another was a smaller armed vessel, which 
the king had given to La Salle. The third, a flute of 
three hundred tons, laden with all the articles necessary 
for the settlement of the country ; and the fourth, a small 
sloop of 30 tons, freighted for St. Domingo, where the 
expedition stopped in its way, but before their arrival at 
which, this last vessel was taken by Spanish cruizers. 
This expedition sailed from La Rochelle on the 24th of 
July, 1684. 

They failed in finding the mouth of the Mississippi, 



103 



their destination ; an accident similar to that which had 
happened to the first settlers of New England ; and after 
many disasters, landed and built a fort in February, 1685, 
at the head of the bay of St. Bernard, or, as they call it, 
of St. Louis, and westward of the river Colorado. Beau- 
jeu returned with the frigate to France : the two other 
vessels were lost in the bay ; and La Salle, after several 
unsuccessful attempts to find the Mississippi, on the 12th 
of January, 16S7, left at his fort twenty persons, includ- 
ing seven women, under the command of Le Barbier, and 
took his departure with sixteen others, to go by land to 
the Illinois, and thence through Canada to France, to 
seek further reinforcement and supplies. On this journey 
he was basely assassinated on the 19th of March, 1687, 
by two of his own men, and left a name among the illus- 
trious discoverers of the new world, second only to that 
of Columbus, with whose history and adventures, his 
own bear, in many particulars, a striking resemblance. 
His brother Cavelier, however, with Joutel, father Anas- 
tase, and several others of the party with whom he had 
commenced the journey, successfully accomplished it, ar- 
rived at the French fort at Illinois, where they found 
Tonti still in command, after having again been down to 
the mouth of the Mississippi, conformably to his orders 
from La Salle, to meet the expedition from Europe, and, 
after waiting some time there, returning to his post. 
From the fort at the Illinois, Cavelier, Joutel, and father 
Anastase, proceeded to Quebec, and thence returned to 
France, where they arrived in October, J 688, and where 
Joutel published the narrative of the expedition, to which 
I have referred. 

From this work of J outel it likewise appears, that the 
fort and colony left by La Salle, at the westward of 
the Colorado, was destroyed ; not, as you state, by the In- 
dians, but by the Spaniards from Mexico, who, until that 
time, had never any settlement of any kind nearer than 



104 



Panuco, and who, by your own account, had no other 
right or authority for (his act, than the royal order of Phi- 
lip the Second, to exterminate all foreigners penetrating 
into (he Gulph of Mexico. 

The settlement of La Salle, therefore, at the head of the 
boy of St. Bernard, westward of the river, which he called 
Riviere aux Boeufs, but which you call Colorado of 
Texas, was not, as you have represented it, the unautho- 
rised incursion of a private adventurer into the territories 
of Spain, but an establishment having every character 
that could sanction the formation of any European co- 
lony upon this continent ; and the viceroy of Mexico had 
no more right to destroy it by a military force, than the 
present viceroy would have to send an army and destroy 
the city of New Orleans. It was a part of Louisiana dis- 
covered by La Salle under formal and express authority 
from the king of France ; and the royal exterminating 
order of Philip the Second was but one of the multitude 
of sanguinary acts which signalized the reign and name 
of that monarch, while the name of La Salle is entitled 
to stand high in the glorious roll of benefactors of man- 
kind. After this statement, founded upon the most au- 
thentic documents, the foundation of the presidio of Texas, 
in 1693, was, by your own showing, an -unlawful en- 
croachment upon the territories of France, which, by the 
first of the three principles laid down by Messrs. Pinckney 
and Monroe at Aranjuez, and above referred to, ex- 
tended on the coast of the Gulph of Mexico, half way 
to the nearest Spanish settlements of Panuco, namely, 
to the Rio Bravo. 

Your " thorough investigation" of the history of the 
original French settlements at the Illinois and the Arkan- 
sas, is as unfortunate, and as wide from the facts, as all 
the rest of your dissertation upon the history of Louisiana. 
The following translated extracts from the work, entitled 
u Dernicres Decouvcrtes, dans FAmeriquc Sepfentrionale 



105 



de M. de la Salle, mises au jour par M. le Chevalier de 
Tonti, gouverneur du fort Si. Louis aux Illinois." (Last 
discoveries in North Imerica of M. de la Salle, published 
by the chevalier Tonti, governor of fort St. Louis, at the 
Illinois, Paris, 1697,) will furnish you more correct ideas 
upc.: the subject. 

When La Salle left his Fort Crevecoeur, on the 8th of 
November, 1680, to go back to Canada for supplies, 
u on the third day (says Tonti) he arrived at the great 
village of the Illinois, •where, after having observed the si- 
tuation of the country, in the midst of several nations of 
the Miamis, Kickapoos, Ainoos, Mescontaws, and several 
others, watered by a beautiful river, he thought that he 
ought to build a fort upon a height coaimanding the 
whole country, as well to make himself master of all 
these different tribes, as to serve as a retreat and a ram- 
part for our French people." (p. 94.) M. de la Salle, 
after learning that his boat was " lost, was not in the least 
discomposed, but wrote to me immediately, sent me with 
his letter the plan of the fort that he had designed, and 
ordered me to come and set to work upon it without de- 
lay." Tonti accordingly went and began the building of 
the fort, which, from various untoward events, he was 
soon obliged to abandon. La Salle, afterwards, before re- 
joining Tonti to proceed down the river, went to the new 
fort and left several workmen to continue, and some sol- 
diers to guard it. But it was upon his return from the 
mouth of the Mississippi, on leaving Michilimackinac to 
go to France, that he gave orders to Tonti to finish the 
fort. 

u He charged me with the duty to go and finish fort 
St. Louis, of which he gave me government, with a full 
power to dispose of the lands, in the neighbourhood; and 
left all his people under my command, with the exception 
of six Frenchmen, whom he took with him to accompany 



106 



liim to Quebec. We departed on the same day, be for 
Canada, and I for the Illinois." 

Tonti accordingly finished the fort, round which a re- 
gular and rapid settlement was formed ; and a new go- 
vernor of Canada having displaced him in the command 
of the fort, he was restored to it through the influence of 
La Salle, by a regular commission from the king, Louis 
the fourteenth. 

So much for the settlement of the Illinois. You have 
seen that when La Salle, in 1683, returned to France to 
fit out the new expedition for the mouth of the Missis- 
sippi, he ordered Tonti, at the proper time, to go down 
from fort St. Louis and meet him there. In the autumn 
of 1684, Tonti was informed by the governor of Canada, 
that La Salle had sailed from La Rochelle with four ships 
for the Gulf of Mexico. He, therefore, took with him 
forty men from fort St. Louis, and went dowjn the river 
to the Gulf, where he waited until Easter Monday, 1685, 
for La Salle's arrival. He was obliged to go back disap- 
pointed, and on his way upwards, when he came to the 
Arkansas, he says, " My French companions, delighted 
with the beauty of the climate, asked my permission to 
settle there. As our intention was only to humanize and 
civilize the savages, by associating with them, I readily 
gave my consent. I formed the plan of a house for ray- 
self at the Arkansas. I left ten Frenchmen of my com- 
pany there, with four Indians, to proceed with the build- 
ing, and I gave them leave to lodge there themselves, 
and to cultivate as much of the land as they could clear." 
This little colony has since then so much increased and 
multiplied, that it has become a resting place for the 
Frenchmen who travel in that country." 

I trust, Sir, we shall hear no more of the independent 
and unconnected Indian colonies of the Illinois and the 
Arkansas ; nor of the pretended settlements of the French 
there. 



107 



You consider the charter of Louis the XlVth to Gro- 
zat, as a solitary document, warranted by nothing that had 
preceded, and supported by nothing that followed it, and 
you appear to believe that the first expedition to Louisia- 
na, was that of 1699 and 1700. 1 have shown you, Sir, that 
that expedition was fitted out, as it is represented in the 
grant to Crozat, merely to carry into execution the pro- 
ject originally formed by La Salle. The Mississippi, from 
near its source to the ocean, had been discovered by him 
in an expedition mediated by him for many years before, 
for which he had obtained the authority from Louis the 
XlVth, through the influence and patronage of Colbert. 
The expedition of Joliet, in 1673, Hennepin says, was 
only an envious rival attempt, to forestal the great design 
which was even then known to be intended by La Salle, 
and for which he had already been making laborious 
and expensive preparations. Joliet reached the Missis- 
sippi, and returned without making any other discovery 
or any settlement; but La Salle's undertaking has every 
characteristic of sublime genius, magnanimous enterprize, 
and heroic execution. To him, and to him alone, the 
people of this continent are indebted for the discovery, 
from its source to the ocean, of the Mississippi, the father 
of the floods ; and of the numberless million of freemen 
destined in this and future ages to sail on his bosom, and 
dwell along his banks, and those of his tributary streams, 
there is not one, but will be deeply indebted for a large 
portion of the comforts and enjoyments of life, to the genius 
and energy of La Salle. 

It was in the order of Providence, that he should not 
live to accomplish the whole of his undertaking, but that 
he should so nearly accomplish it, as to place it beyond 
the power of events, that it should perish with him. His 
project was revived immediately after the peace of Rys- 
wick, and settlements were effected by dTberville and his 
brother, near the mouth of the Mississippi, upon the Gulf 



108 



of Mexico. They languished, as they naturally must, 
during the war qf the Spanish succession. The grant to 
Crozat, after a very few years, was transferred to the Mis- 
sissippi company, and soon after the peace of Utrecht, the 
city of New Orleans was founded. 

There is no doubt, that if the viceroy of Mexico could 
have exterminated d'Iberville and his expedition, no 
French settlement on the Gulf would have been made. 
The Spanish establishment at Pensacola had been made 
only one month before he arrived there, and solely for the 
purpose ci preventing him. The Spaniards protested 
even against his entering the Mississippi. So it was after- 
wards, when the French settlement was made at Natchito- 
chez. Immediately afterwards was founded the post at 
Adaes. Wherever a Frenchman took a seat, there ap- 
peared a Spaniard from Mexico to dispute his right to it ; 
but the original usurpation, which vitiated all those that 
followed, was the foundation of the Presidio of Texas, 
after extirpating the settlement of La Salle at the Bay of 
St. Bernard. And so far was France from renouncing or 
abdicating any part of the right asserted in the charter to 
Crozat, that, under the Mississippi company, Mr. de 
Bourman was appointed, with a salary as commandant on 
the Missouri, and Bernard la Harpe commandant for the 
Bay of St. Bernard. In August, 1724, he went there, and 
left a new impression of the arms of France, as a continued 
assertion of the title. A vessel commanded by Berenger, 
had been sent there, and had left a sergeant and three men 
the year before. The correspondence between De La 
Harpe and d'Alarconne, shows the respective claims both 
of France and Spain at that time, nor do they appear to 
have been, nor have you exhibited any document to show 
that they had been in any manner varied, until the cession 
of the province to Spain, in November, 1762. 

You affirm, lhat <c from the year 1693 the province of 
Texas has continued in perfect tranquillity under the 



109 



Spanish government, and no further attempts were made by 
the French to penetrate into any part of it." The letter of 
M. de la Harpe, to Don Martin D'Alarconne, of 8th July, 
1719, is sufficient to refute this assertion. 

You assert, that the French settlements of Natchez and 
Natchitochez were made only through the sufferance or 
permission of the Spanish governors, for the sole purpose 
of trading with the Indians. We say that you have not 
a particle of evidence to support this assertion, and that 
the whole tenor of the historical evidence is to the contrary ; 
that the post of Natchitochez, particularly, was establish- 
ed with the deliberate purpose of preventing a Spanish 
establishment there, and that the mission of St. Michel to 
the Adaes was founded after it, and in opposition to it. 
You admit, yourself, that, although positive orders were 
issued by the Spanish go vernors, to drive the French from 
the whole district, and to destroy both the posts of Nat- 
chez and Natchitochez ; yet the officer charged with the 
execution of the orders, after advancing with a sufficient 
force for that purpose, acceded to the proposals of the 
French at Natchitochez, that Arroyo Hondo, midway be- 
tween Natchitochez and Jaes, should be considered as 
the dividing line, until the determination of the two courts ; 
which state of things you say continued until the cession 
of Louisiana to Spain in 1762. What clearer proof could 
be required, that the French never renounced their claim 
to the countries watered by the Mississippi and its bran- 
ches ; and that Spain has nothing to oppose to that claim, 
which she might not with as much force oppose to the 
right of France to every other part of the colony of Louis- 
iana ? 

You allege, that, upon the cession of Louisiana to 
Spain, a memoir of its proper extent and limits was drawn 
up by Mr. Kerlet, who had been many years governor of 
the province, and delivered by the duke de Choiseul to 
the Spanish ambassador af Paris, as a supplement to the 



110 



act of cession. That this memoir contained a description 
of its proper extent and limits, and agrees substantially 
with your assertions. Permit me to observe, that had 
you produced the memoir itself, it might have been a 
subject of reply or of remark ; that, not having produced 
it, you cannot expect it should be considered as possibly 
differing in substance from the charter of Louis the Four- 
teenth, by which alone Louisiana had been held, or from 
the subsequent memoir of the Count de Vergennes ; and 
that the rights of the United States can as little be affect- 
ed by secret memoirs, as by imaginary treaties or exter- 
minating royal orders of Philip the Second. With re- 
gard to your offer of further demonstrations of the Spanish 
title, if they are of the like description with these, you 
will do well to spare yourself and me the waste of time, 
which it would take to produce and to notice them. You 
have the goodness to inform me, in the name of the king, 
your master, that Spain has an indisputable right to all 
the right bank of the Mississippi, but that his Majesty has 
resolved to claim it, solely with a view to adhere to the 
uti possidetis of 1764. If, Sir, you will exhibit any evi- 
dence of right in Spain to the right bank of the Missis- 
sippi, it will be considered by the government of the 
United States with all the attention to which it can be en- 
titled. In the mean time you cannot but perceive that 
this pretension is utterly incompatible both with that ad- 
vanced in another part of your note of a right in Spain to 
the whole circumference of the Gulf of Mexico, and with 
that to the uti possidetis of 1764. 

The question of disputed boundaries between Euro- 
pean settlements in America, is not new. From the 
nature of those settlements, the imperfect geographical 
knowledge possessed by all the parties to them, of the 
countries where they formed their establishments, and the 
grasping spirit by which they were all more or less ani- 
mated in forming them, it was inevitable that disputed 



Ill 

boundaries should be an appendage to them all. Of this 
spirit of boundless ambition, Spain gave the most memo- 
rable example by the original pretension of engrossing to 
herself the whole American hemisphere. The common 
sense and common feeling of mankind could not and did 
not long tolerate this assumption. With what lingering 
reluctance, and by what ungracious gradations, Spain 
was compelled to recede from it, is notorious in the annals 
of the last three centuries ; but it is among the most curi- 
ous characteristics of your notes, to show, that she clings 
to these long exploded pretensions still. You have not 
scrupled, even at this day, to style the most ancient settle- 
ments of other European nations in America, 66 attempts 
to disturb the Spaniards in their possessions in the New 
World." 

You recal to mind with exultation, as if pointing to the 
most splendid monuments of Spanish glory, the ferocious- 
ness with which they attacked, and made prisoners, and 
put to death, and overthrew, dissipated, and destroyed the 
forts and settlements of Francis Ribaut, and Rene de 
Laudonniere, the companion of Coligny. You recite 
with triumph the expedition of Alonzo de Leon, to scour 
the country and hunt out the wretched remnant of the 
brave and enterprizing but unfortunate La Salle's estab- 
lishment. You record, as one of your proudest title- 
deeds, the rigorous execution of the sentence of a court 
martial upon the Spanish governor of Adaes, Sandoval, 
for yielding a musket shot's length of ground to the French 
governor of Natchitochez, suffering under the calamity of 
an inundation. You call the whole colony of Louisiana an 
intrusive establishment, style the authentic charter of Louis 
the Fourteenth the absurd and despicable act of a disor- 
dered imagination ; assert more than once a right of Spain 
to the whole circumference of the Gulf of Mexico, and 
talk of the territory and dominions of the crown of Spain, 



112 



as if we were living in the age of Ferdinand the Catholic, 
or of Charles the Fifth. 

To all such pretensions on the part of Spain, I am di- 
rected to inform you, that the United States can never 
accede. The president is willing to hope that the time 
will come, when your government will become sensible of 
the uselessness of resorting to them. 

From the time when the establishments of European 
nations on these continents became common, and their 
respective claims of territory under the charters of their 
sovereigns were found to interfere with one another, rea- 
son, justice, and necessity concurred in pointing out to 
them certain rules and principles for the adjustment of 
their conflicting claims. By these rules and principles, 
we are w illing that the question of the western boundary 
of Louisiana may be decided. Till Spain, who has re- 
peatedly acceded to them heretofore, shall be prepared to 
abide by them on this occasion, it will be of little avail to 
pursue a discussion, upon which the principles of the par- 
ties are utterly irreconcilable together. 

With regard to the third of the subjects of difference 
between Spain and the United States, that remains to be 
adjusted, the claims of indemnification for injuries, losses, 
and damages, suffered by American citizens from Spanish 
authorities and subjects, and within Spanish jurisdiction, 
I flatter myself, from the tenor of your note, devoted par- 
ticularly to the consideration of this point, that it is not 
absolutely unsusceptible of being brought to a favorable 
issue. You express the willingness of your government 
to resume the unratified convention of 1802, and to extend 
its stipulations to the cases of complaint of a similar cha- 
racter to those provided for in it, which have since that 
time accrued. It is undoubtedly the intention of this 
government, that its engagements should be reciprocal, 
and if this was not expressly declared in my note of the 
16th of January, it was merely because the President was 



113 



not aware that any such claims of Spanish subjects, for 
indemnities from the American government, were in ex- 
istence. I am authorized to assure you that there will be 
no difficulty in including any such as may exist in the 
convention, and in making the United States answerable 
for all indemnities which may be justly due to them. 

As you have also been impowered to include the cases 
of injuries and losses of citizens of the United States, in 
consequence of the suppression by the Spanish intendant 
of the deposite at New Orleans, as stipulated by the treaty 
of 27th October, 1795, it cannot be necessary for me to 
reply to your objections against the admission of those 
claims. I the more readily pass over that argument, be- 
cause, as it is merely a repetition of what was urged on 
the same point by Mr. Cevallos in 1805, it may suffice to 
refer you, for a full and complete refutation of it, to the 
letter from Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe to him, of 26th 
February of that year. 

But even upon this branch of the negociation, it is with 
regret that the President perceives a persevering determi- 
nation of your government, to exclude, from the conside- 
ration of the commissioners for settling indemnities, the 
cases of American sufferers from French spoliations com- 
mitted within the jurisdiction of Spain. In answer to 
your reference to the arguments of Mr. Cevallos on this 
point, in his notes to Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe, of 
10th February, and 5 [4] March, 1805, it will be suffi- 
cient for me to refer you to their letters to him of 28th 
January, 12th and 26th February, 8th March, 9th April, 
and 12th May, with the statement then made by them of 
French captures of American vessels carried into the ports 
of Spain, and the demonstration that no indemnity for any 
one of those cases had even been demanded by the Ameri- 
can government, of France, much less provided for in the 
conventions between the United States and France, of 1800 
and 1803. When you say, that " no reply was made on 



114 



the part of the United States, weakening in the least the 
force of the principles and the truth of the facts, on which 
the opposition of Spain to a responsibility for those dama- 
ges and injuries was founded," it is impossible to account 
for your assertion, but by supposing that you have not 
been furnished by your government with a copy of the a- 
bove mentioned statement. I therefore now enclose (E 5.) 
a copy of it, in which you will find how grossly mistaken, 
with regard to the facts, are all the allegations^in the let- 
ter of the French minister of foreign relations to admiral 
Gravina, of 27th July, 1804, of which you have inserted 
in your note an entire copy, and of which Mr. Cevallos 
had already favored Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe with 
an extract. 

It may be proper here to present some obvious remarks 
upon the frequent appeals to the opinions and assertions of 
France (under the government of Napoleon) in reference 
to the controversy between the United States and Spain, 
which were made by Mr. Cevallos at Aranjuez, in 1805, 
and which are now epeated by you, with as much confi- 
dence as if you considered France, as then governed, the 
most impartial of umpires, and the most disinterested of 
friends. 

At that time, when these opinions and representations of 
France were alleged by Mr. Cevallos, they were answered 
by the American ministers with a firmness which became 
the representatives of a great and independent nation, and 
with the sentiment at once of their country's dignity, and 
of the respect due to the government of France, with 
which the United States were in amity. With regard to 
the eastern limits of Louisiana, they observed, that the 
question depending upon the construction of a treaty, to 
which the United States were a party, the opinion of 
France concerning it could be of no more weight, in it- 
self, than that of the United States. That, in adopting 
the phraseology of the treaty of St. Ildcphonso, when 



115 



France declined substituting a more specific definition of 
boundaries, the United States could not be supposed to 
have subjected themselves to the subsequent explanatory 
restriction by France, of that which she then chose to 
leave standing upon the force of the terms themselves ; 
and that the delivery of the province by the commissioner 
of France to the United States, having been without any 
such limitation, it was obvious that he had received it 
alike without limitation. 

With respect to the French spoliations within Spanish 
jurisdiction, while the interest of France was so imme- 
diate and direct, as to take from her opinion al 1 right to 
the consideration due to an impartial arbitrator, it was 
supposed that the proper view of the subject had not been 
presented to the emperor ; and the most unequivocal de- ^ 
monstration was given, that no indemnity or satisfaction 
had been received, or even demanded from France, by the 
United States, for this description of injuries. 

At this day your government must be aware, that the 
umpirage, and even the opinions of France upon these 
questions, were liable to other and still more decisive ob- 
jections. Of the use which France was already making and 
was further contemplating to make of Spain, of her reve. 
nues and possessions, not only in Europe, but in every 
other quarter of the globe, little needs be said. That she 
was converting, to purposes of her own, all the resources 
of Spain, has been since then too signally manifested to 
the world, to require further elucidation. It was impos-'X 
sible for her to recognize that Spain was bound to indem- I 
nify the United States for the spoliations of French crui- 
zers within Spanish jurisdiction, without acknowledging 
herself the debtor of Spain to the same amount. To call 4 
for her testimony, therefore, was to claim her a6 a witness 
in her own cause ; to appeal to her decisions was to make 
her the judge of her own delinquencies. By countenan- 
cing Spain in the denial of justice to others, she did but \ 

H 



116 



reserve her as a richer spoil for herself ; nor can it be 
dissembled that the recourse of Spain, on that occasion, 
was rather to the predominating power than to the justice 
of France. These observations are made, not with the 
view of reproaching Spain now, for the compliances with 
which she then sought and obtained the declarations of 
France in her favor, upon her controversy with the 
United States, but to show the solid and irrefragable 
grounds upon which the United States may refuse all de- 
ference for the opinions, and disclaim all credit to the 
statements of France. 

At the time when France had ceded Louisiana to the 
United States, her good offices with Spain to secure the 
acquisition of Florida to the United States had been ex- 
plicitly promised. The letter of Mr. Monroe to Mr. 
Talleyrand of 8th November, 1804, in reminding him of 
that engagement, had sufficiently shown, that the govern- 
ment of the United States, in calling upon France for the 
performance of her promise, had no intention of admitting 
her to arbitrate upon the extent of the concession which 
had been made by herself. True it is, that she not only 
espoused the side of Spain, as considering it her own, 
but she even stimulated Spain to the denial of justice to 
the United States. As her motives, if Spain could be 
doubtful of them then, must be abundantly notorious now, 
it could scarcely have been expected that Spain should 
still recur to them, as entitled to the slightest consideration 
or credit. 

There is no principle of the law of nations more firmly 
established than that which entitles the property of stran- 
gers within the jurisdiction of a country in friendship 
with their own to the protection of its sovereign, by all 
the efforts in his power. This common rule of intercourse 
between all civilized nations has, between the United 
States and Spain, the further and solemn sanction of an 
express stipulation by treaty. In violation both of the 



117 



common usage of nations, and of the express promise of 
Spain in the treaty, nearly two hundred vessels and their 
cargoes, belonging to citizens of the United States, were 
seized, many of them within the territorial limits of Spain, 
and under the cannon of her fortresses, by French crui- 
zers • and all of them were condemned within Spanish ju- 
risdiction. 

You allege — first, that Spain has, in the cases to which 
reference is now made, actually carried into effect the ob- 
ligations contracted by treaty : that she has used all her 
efforts for the defence and protection of this property. But 
in what have these efforts consisted ? These were not cases 
of vessels seized by sudden violence and carried away be- 
yond her jurisdiction, before the officers appointed for the 
execution of her laws could be apprized of the wrong, 
and summoned to the performance of their duties. They 
are not cases of clandestine depredations, eluding the vi- 
gilance of the magistrates ; they are cases of friendly 
merchants and navigators frequenting the ports of Spain 
upon the faith of treaties, and for purposes of a mutual 
beneficial intercourse — seized some of them in the very 
harbours of Spain, by foreign cruizers, dragged on Span- 
ish ground before a foreign consul, and there plundered 
of their property before the face of all the lawful autho- 
rities of Spain; who neither raise a voice nor lift an arm 
for their defence. What then have been all the efforts 
of Spain for the protection of this property, conformably 
to the treaty ? 

You say — secondly, that Spain was not responsible for 
these depredations, because they were made by a nation 
with whom the United States were not at war ; and this 
you say immediately after quoting the words of the sixth 
article of the treaty, expressly stipulating protection and 
defence in the ports of Spain to the vessels and other ef- 
fects of the citizens of the United States, " whether they 

H 2 



118 



arc at war or not, with the power whose subjects have ta«< 
ken possession of the said effects." 

You observe — thirdly, that France and Spain were then 
allies, in a war against England, and that Spain could not 
prevent (he privateers of her ally from entering her ports. 
But it is not that the French privateers were allowed to 
enter the ports of Spain, of which the United States com- 
plain; but that they were suffered to make prizes, and 
the French consuls to condemn them, within the territo- 
rial jurisdiction of Spain. You refer to the decision of 
a subordinate British court of admiralty, that the prizes 
of a belligerent may be carried into the ports of an ally, 
and there lawfully condemned ; but surely you do not 
mean to contend, that the decisions of an admiralty court 
of one nation constitutes the law of nations, or can even 
be adduced as authority for others. Of this principle at 
least, there can be no doubt, that an alliance between two 
nations cannot absolve either of them from the obligations 
of previous treaties. Now the treaty between Spain and 
the United States, by which Spain was bound to protect 
the property of American citizens within her jurisdiction, 
was concluded before the alliance between Spain and 
France had been contracted ; and the alliance could in 
no wise impair the rights of the citizens of the United 
States to the protection of their property, stipulated in 
their favour by the antecedent engagement of Spain. 

Your fourth and last expedient, for relieving Spain from 
responsibility for these losses and injuries suffered by A- 
merican citizens upon her territory, is the positive asser- 
tion that satisfaction has already been made for them by 
France ; your only voucher for which is the letter of 27th 
July, 1804, from Mr. Talleyrand to Admiral Gravina. 
The assertions of that letter I have shewn, by reference to 
indisputable documents, are utterly without foundation. 
Your subsequent offer of the good offices of your govern 



119 



ment, near that of the present court of France, to obtain 
indemnities for American citizens for French depredations 
committed within Spanish jurisdiction, by virtue of an al- 
liance between Spain and Napoleon, you doubtless did 
not expect would be accepted. It is to Spain alone, Sir, 
that the United States still look and will continue to look 
as they always have looked, for those indemnities for which 
Spain alone is responsible to them. I am instructed to re- 
new to you the declaration repeatedly made by the minis- 
ter of the United States to your government, at Aranjuez, 
in 1805, that no satisfactory arrangement can be made of 
the differences between the two countries which shall not 
include the adjustment of these injuries. 

Before bringing this reply to your four successive no'cs 
to a close, it is necessary to advert to several incidental as- 
sertions and remarks, which you have made in relation to 
the negociation at Aranjuez, equally destitute of founda- 
tion, with the claims and pretensions to which this letter 
has already replied. 

In your note of the 29th December, you affirm, that the 
negociation at Aranjuez was " early interrupted and in 
that of 24th January, to confirm the assertion, that, if all 
the differences between the two countries have not long 
since been adjusted, it has not depended upon the govern- 
ment of Spain, you say that this is 6( evident, beyond the 
possibility of denial, from the official correspondence be- 
tween his Catholic Majesty's minister of state, and the ple- 
nipotentiaries of the American government who suspended 
and gave up the negociation at Aranjuez, after having ob- 
stinately refused to accept the modifications, founded on 
strict justice, which were proposed by the Spanish govern- 
ment." 

The negociation of the special mission of the United 
States at Aranjuez, in 1805, occupied a period of nearly 
five months, from the beginning of January, when Mr. 
Munroe arrived at Madrid, to the 22d of May, when he 



120 



took leave of the king, to return to London. In his ad- 
dress to the king on that occasion, he said " on my arriwal 
here, I had the honour to assure your majesty, of the high 
consideration of my government for your majesty's person 
and government. 1 then hoped to have had the honour to 
conclude the special mission with which I was charged, 
in conjunction with the minister plenipotentiary near your 
Majesty, to the advantage and satisfaction of both parties; 
but being disappointed in this respect, all our propositions 
having been rejected and none others ever offered on the part 
of your Majesty's government y though open invited 9 it is 
my duty to return to my station at London." 

This assertion, made to the king of Spain in person, at 
the close of that mission, was fully warranted by the tran- 
sactions under it. Every one of the topics, now included 
in your four notes, as embracing all the subjects of differ- 
ence between the two countries, were discussed at great 
length, much in the same manner which you have now 
insisted upon repeating. The questions of indemnities for 
spoliations, Spanish and French, and for the suppression 
of the deposite at New Orleans ; of the eastern and of the 
western boundary of Louisiana ; were descanted upon with 
pertinacity as indefatigable by Don Pedro Cevallos as by 
yourself. He bestowed as many pages upon the terms re- 
trocede and retrocession as you have done. He appealed 
with equal confidence and alacrity to the opinions, and 
cited with equal complacency the testimonials of the mi- 
nisters of Napoleon, and reminded Messrs. Monroe and 
Pinckney, with a satisfaction not inferior to your own, of 
the " very pointed" manner in which the French minister 
of foreign relations, Mr. Talleyrand, announcing the sen- 
timents of his imperial majesty, observed, that u to make 
known the rights which France had acquired, was to in- 
dicate the extent and the limits of those which she trans- 
mitted to the federal government." To every thing that 
had the semblance of reason and argument, adduced in the 



121 



successive notes of Mr. Cevallos, the American ministers 
temperately and patiently replied; they unfolded, with a 
clearness and precision to which nothing can now be ad- 
ded, the claims of the United States, and the facts and prin- 
ciples by which they were supported. They proposed, at 
the commencement of the negociation, a project of a con- 
vention for the adjustment of all the interests in dispute. 
After all the subjects had been thoroughly discussed, they 
presented a second project, modified in the most concilia- 
tory spirit of accommodation to Spain. They invited, 
and reiterated, almost to importunity, the invitation, to a 
counter project, or proposals on the part of the Spanish 
government. These unwearied efforts were met by a con- 
stant, invariable, inflexible refusal either to accept their 
proposals, or to make to them any whatsoever in return. 

You speak of the titles, dates, documents and arguments 
produced on the " part of Spain, at that negociation, in- 
contestably proving, by abundant and irresistable evidence, 
the rights of the Spanish monarchy to the territory in 
question." 

If such had been the facts where would be the pretence 
that the American ministers had prematurely suspended 
or given up the negociation ? But Mr. Cevallos produced 
no such titles, dates or documents ; the only title ever 
alleged by him in support of the pretensions of Spain was 
the title of retrocession, applied to the treaty of St. Ilde- 
phonso ; the only date was that of 1690, which he as- 
signed as the period of the first Spanish settlement of 
Texas, which date was five years later than the settlement 
of La Salle, at the head of the Bay of St. Bernard ; and 
the only documents were the dictatorial and menacing 
testimonials of the French minister of foreign relations. 
That all the titles, dates and documents, then referred to, 
were insufficient in the estimation of your own govern- 
ment to establish the rights which you have claimed, is 
manifest from the efforts which you have made to bring 



forward others, and from the characters of those to which 
you have resorted, an unknown, and as it is believed, ima- 
ginary, treaty of J 764, and a royal exterminating order 
of Philip the Second. 

You perceive, sir, that the government of the United 
States is not prepared either to renounce any of the claims 
which it has been so long urging upon the justice of Spain, 
or to acquiesce in any of those arguments w hich appear 
to you so luminous and irresistible. 

Determined to pursue the establishment of their rights, 
as long as by any possibility they can be pursued, through 
the paths of peace, they have acquiesced, as the message 
of the President, at the commencement of the present 
session of Congress, has informed you, in that policy of 
Spain, which has hitherto procrastinated the amicable 
adjustment of these interests, not from an insensibility to 
their importance to this Union, nor from any indifference 
to the object of being upon terms of cordial harmony with 
Spain, but because peace is among the dearest and most 
earnest objects of their policy ; and because they have 
considered, and still consider it, more congenial to the 
principles of humanity, and to the permanent welfare of 
both nations, to wait for the favorable operation of time 
upon the prejudices and passions opposed to them, than 
to resort to the unnecessary agency of force. After a 
lapse of thirteen years of patient forbearance, in waiting 
for the moment when Spain should find it expedient to 
meet their constant desire of bringing to a happy and 
harmonious termination all the conflicting interests be- 
tween them, it will need little additional effort to wait 
somewhat longer with the same expectation. The Presi- 
dent deems this course even more adviseable than that of 
referring the questions depending between the two nations, 
to the arbitrament or mediation of one or more friendly 
European powers, as you have been authorized to pro- 
pose. The statement in your note of the 10th of Feb- 



] 



ruary. in reference to this subject, is not altogether cor- 
rect. It is not the British government which, on this 
occasion, has offered ; but your government which, with- 
out first consulting or asking the concurrence of the 
United States, has requested the mediation of Great Bri- 
tain. The British government, as must be well known to 
you, have declined the offer of their mediation, unless it 
should be requested by both parties ; and have communi- 
cated to the government of the United States this overture 
on the part of Spain. The President has thought proper, 
from motives which he has no doubt will be deemed satis- 
factory both to Great Britain and Spain, to decline uniting 
in this request. He is, indeed, fully persuaded that, 
notwithstanding any prepossessions which the British 
government may heretofore have entertained with regard 
to any of the points in controversy, they would have been 
entirely discarded in assuming the office of a mediator. 
But it has hitherto been the policy, both of Europe and of 
the United States, to keep aloof from the general federa- 
tive system of each other. The European States are 
combined together, and connected with one another, by a 
multitude of important interests and relations, with which 
the United States have no concern — with which they have 
always manifested the determination not to interfere, and 
of which no communication being made to them by the 
governments of Europe, they have not information com- 
petent to enable them to estimate their extent and bear- 
ings. The United States, in justice to themselves — in 
justice to that harmony which they earnestly desire to 
cultivate with all the powers of Europe—in justice to that 
fundamental system of policy which forbids them from 
entering the labyrinth of European politics, must decline 
soliciting or acceding to the interference of any other 
government of Europe, for the settlement of their differ- 
ences with Spain. 

But, however discouraging the tenor and character of 



124 



you i recent notes has been to the hopes, which the pro- 
mises and professions of your government had excited, 
that the time for adjustment of these differences with Spain 
had at length arrived, the United States will not abandon 
the expectation, that more correct views of the subject 
will ultimately be suggested to your government, and 
they will always be disposed to meet them in the spirit of 
justice and of amity. With regard to those parts of the 
province of Louisiana, which have been incorporated 
within the state of that name, it is time that the discus- 
sion should cease. Forming part of the territory of a 
sovereign and independent state of the Union, to dispose 
of them is not within the competency of the United States, 
nor will the discussion be hereafter continued. But if you 
have proposals to make, to which it is possible for the go- 
vernment of the United States to listen, with a prospect of 
bringing them to any practicable conclusion, I am autho- 
rized to receive them, and to conclude with you a treaty 
for the adjustment of all the differences between the 
two nations, upon terms which may be satisfactory to 
both. 

With regard to the motives for the occupation of Ame- 
lia Island, the messages from the President of the United 
States to Congress, and my letter to you of 16th January, 
have given the explanations, which, it is presumed, will 
be satisfactory to your government. The exposed and 
feeble situation of that island, as well as of the remainder 
of East Florida, with their local position in the neighbour- 
hood of the United States, have always been among the 
primary inducements of the United States for urging to 
Spain the expediency, to the interests of both nations, that 
Spain should cede them for a just and suitable equivalent 
to the United States. In the letter of the 28th of Janu- 
ary, 1805, from Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe, to Mr. 
Cevallos, the following passage stands prominent among 
the arguments used by them to that effect: " Should 



125 



Spain,'' say they, u not place a strong force in Florida, 
it will not escape your Excellency's attention, that it will 
be much exposed to the danger of being taken possession 
of by some other power, who might wish to hold it with 
very different views towards Spain, than those which ani- 
mate the government of the United States. Without a 
strong force being there, it might even become an asylum 
for adventurers and freebooters, to the great annoyance of 
both nations." 

You know, Sir, how far the events thus anticipated and 
pointed out so early as in January, 1805, to the prudent 
forecast of Spain, have been realized. Pensacola has been 
occupied by another power, for the purpose of carrying 
on war from it against the United States, and Amelia 
Island has been occupied by adventurers, to the great an- 
noyance of both nations, and of all others engaged in 
lawful commerce upon the Gulph of Mexico. Before 
these events occurred, the Congress of the United States, 
aware of the great and growing danger of thera,which had 
been so long before distinctly foreseen, had made it the 
duty of the executive government, in the case of such a 
contingency, to take the temporary possession of the 
country, which might be necessary to avert the injuries 
that must result from it. Amelia Island was taken, not 
from the possession of Spain, but of those from whom she 
had been equally incapable of keeping or of recover- 
ing its possession, and who were using it for purposes in- 
compatible with the laws of nations and of the United 
States. No purpose, either of taking or of retaining it 
as a conquest, has ever been entertained ; and unless ceded 
by Spain to the United States, it will be restored when- 
ever the danger of its being again thus occupied and mis- 
used, shall have ceased. 

It is needless to add, that the proposal that the United 
States should take any further measures than those already 
provided by law for preventing armaments hostile to 



120 



Spain within the territories of the United States, is inad- 
missible. The measures already taken, and the laws al- 
ready existing against all hostile armaments within our 
jurisdiction, incompatible with the obligations of neutra- 
lity, are sufficient for its preservation ; and the necessary 
means will continue to be used, as they have been, to 
carry them faithfully into execution. 

I have the honour to be, with great consideration, Sir, 
your obedient and very humble servant, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



A. 1. 

Don Martin D'Alarconne, to M. de la Harpe. 

Trinity River, May 20//*, 1719. 

Monsieur, 

I am very sensible of the politeness that M. de Bienville 
and yourself have had the goodness to show to me. The 
orders I have received from the king, my master, are to 
maintain a good understanding with the French of Loui- 
siana ; my own inclinations lead me equally to afford 
them all the services that depend upon me. But I am 
compelled to say, that your arrival at the Nasonite village 
surprises me very much. 

Your governor could not be ignorant that the post 
you occupy belongs to my government, and that all 
the lands west of the Nassonites depend upon New 
Mexico. 

I counsel you to give advice of this to M. Bienville, or 
you will force me to oblige you to abandon lands, that the 
French have no right to occupy. 

I have the honour to be, Sir, 

D'ALARCONNE. 



127 



B. 2. 

Nassonite, 8th July , 17 19. 

Monsieur, 

The order from his Catholic Majesty to obtain a good 
understanding with the French of Louisiana, and the 
kind intentions you have yourself expressed towardsthem, 
accord but little with your proceedings. Permit me to in- 
form you, that M. de Bienville is perfectly informed of 
the limits of this government, and is very certain that the 
post of Nassonite depends not upon the dominions of his 
Catholic Majesty. He knows also that the province of 
Lastekas, of which you say you are governor, is a part 
of Louisiana. M. de la Salle took possession in 1685, in 
the name of his most Christian Majesty ; and, since the 
above epoch, possession has been renewed from time to 
time. 

u Respecting the post of Nassonite, 1 cannot compre- 
hend by what right you pretend that it forms a part of 
New Mexico. I beg leave to represent to you that Don 
Antoine du Miroir, who discovered New Mexico in J 684, 
never penetrated east of that province or the Rio Bravo. 
It was the French who first made alliances with the sa- 
vage tribes in this region ; and it is natural to conclude, 
that a river that flows into the Mississippi, and the lands 
it waters, belongs to the king, my master. 

" If you will do me the pleasure to come into this 
quarter, I will convince you I hold a post I know how to 
defend. 

" I have the honour to be, Sir, 

DE LA HARPE." 



128 



C. 3. 

On the I Oth of August, 1721, M. de la Harpe received 
the following order : 

" We, John Baptiste de Bienville, Chevalier of the 
military order of St. Louis, and commandant general for 
the king, in the province of Louisiana. 

" It is hereby decreed, that M. de la Harpe, command- 
ant of the Bay of St. Bernard, shall embark in the packet 
of the Subtile, commanded by Beranger, with a detach- 
ment of twenty soldiers, under M. de la Belile, and shall 
proceed forthwith to the Bay of St. Bernard, belonging to 
this province, and take possession, in the name of the 
king, and the west company shall plant the arms of the 
king in the ground, and build a fort upon whatever spot 
appears most advantageous for the defence of the place. 

" If the Spaniards, or any other nation, have taken pos- 
session, M. de la Harpe will signify to them, that they 
have no right to the country, it being well known, that 
possession was taken in 1685, by de la Salle, in the name 
of the king of France, &c. 

" BIENVILLE." 



D. 4. 

Extracts , translated from the " Diccionario Geografico 
Historico de las Indias Occident ales O America" by 
Colonel Don Antonio de Alcedo, Captain of the Royal 
Spanish Guards, printed at Madrid, in 1786 — 1789, by 
permission of government, and dedicated to the Prince 
of Asturias, afterwards Charles the Fourth. 

"Louisiana" a province and government of North Ame- 
rica, one of the two which form New France, bounded on 
the south by the Gulph of Mexico ; on the north, by the 



120 



river Illinois and the Indian tribes of the Pamasus, Paodu- 
cas, Osages, Tronontes, Tecagas, Chavanons, and others : 
on the east by West Florida, Georgia, and Carolina : and 
on the west by New Mexico and New Spain. Its extent 
from north to south, is about fifteen degrees ; that is to say, 
from the 25th to the 40th degree of North latitude, and 
from east to west ten or eleven degrees between 86 and 96 
west longitude : its limits, however, not being precisely 
fixed, M. De Lisle gives it a much greater extent, parti- 
cularly towards the north, where it borders on Canada, 
and, according to him, it is afterwards bounded by New 
York, Pennsylvania,V irginia, &c. and to the west, by the 
river Bravo and Salado." 

a Missouri" an Indian tribe of the province and go- 
vernment of Louisiana inhabiting the banks of the river 
of the same name, on which a fort was built by the French 
for the defence of that establishment." , 

Natchoitoches , or Natchetoches, as pronounced by some, 
a tribe of Indians of the province and government of Lou- 
isiana in North America, living fifty leagues up the Red 
River, by which name they are sometimes called. This 
tribe has alwa} r s been friendly to the French, and hostile 
to the Spaniards ; is very numerous, and has upwards of 
two hundred cabins. The French soldiers who had com- 
pleted their time of service, settled in an island in the 
Red river, where they built a fort and called it Natchito- 
chez ; but, having planted tobacco, and discovered that 
the sand blown on it by the wind gave it a bad quality, 
they removed their settlement to the main land, where 
they succeeded in cultivating that plant, so as to give it 
a particular estimation : it is sixty leagues from New 
Orleans. , ' 

" Rouge " Red River, a large and rapid river of the 
province and government of Louisiana, in North Ame- 
rica ; takes its rise about the tribe of the Carnesis, runs 
south-east, and, after receiving other streams, changes its 



130 



course to ihe south as far as the tribe and fort of Natchi- 
tochez, where it again turns to the south-east, forms seve- 
ral lakes and islands, thence running eastward, joins the 
Mississippi much increased, near where the river empties 
into the sea. 



E 5. , 

Extract from a paper communicated by" Messrs. Pinckney 
and Monroe , to Mr. CevaUos, dated 

Aranjuez, 12th May, 1805. 



u From the 1st October, 1796, until the there were 

brought into the ports of his Catholic Majesty in 
Europe and Africa, by the French, 168 vessels." 

Of the above have been condemned- • * 74 

Acquitted, ransomed, or compromised 

Cases of violation of the Spanish territory 13 

Run ashore and lost % • • 1 

Unaccounted for. • . • . . . . 7 

Result not known • • • • 50 



Total 168 



THE END. 
« I 9m > 



: 

Maurice, Printer, FuidHbrcL-stn et. 1 



o 1 



cv 



- ; 




* o. 



CV s s . ' /, c> V 



\0 



vG 



-0' 



4 ^ 




A v , . ^ *G 



1: <TV- 




0> 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologie* 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

y 111 Thomson Park Drive 

Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724) 779-2111 



» 8 l 1 



o o 



.0 o 



v j 



Q\ .-0 




sO o. 



; ^ * a n ° ^ v n 



Ill- -*l 



f 




ft-* oo 



/, c- V 



\0 



;( - 



